Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

A concern

The Signpost is about to publish a misleading article (permalink). I left a comment but Kudpung removed it, and I was told to post here instead. I'll post it below with the original timestamp. The thrust of the article is that the latest Signpost edition has been "censored" by a topic ban. The story has been changed a little since I complained, but it still claims "Barbara, whose intended article in her usual column this month has been censored by the terms of the ban ..." This is not true. Pinging Anthonyhcole, Barbara's mentor. SarahSV (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung, this story is inaccurate. I was the one who pointed out the tension between Barbara's topic ban and her creation of the Signpost page about Freud and Jung. The problem was not, as you wrote, that the page "simply mention[ed] the names of two pioneers of human psychology", but that Barbara created two (now-deleted) templates for it, {{Siggy Freud}} and {{Carl}}—based on {{Sigmund Freud}} and {{Jung}}—which contained numerous links to sexuality and health articles.

Barbara's topic ban covers "human health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed". Topic bans cover all pages, not only articles. The ban was discussed on AN/I between 1 and 6 August, after she was blocked by an admin who interpreted it to cover non-human animal health, and who believed she might have been boundary-testing. The community disagreed and Barbara was unblocked. In summing up the discussion for Barbara on 6 August, I mentioned the Signpost page, but I didn't ask her to change or delete it (bold added):

"... it's important that you don't test the ban's boundaries. For example, you created this sandbox page on 11 July with a WHO citation, and on 4 August this Signpost page with health-related links in the template. The latter was copied from an earlier page, but the earlier creation was after the ban too. Those are frankly odd pages to create while you're under a health topic ban, especially during an AN/I discussion about the ban's scope. ... I don't want to interfere with the next Signpost edition, but please don't write jokes related to human health for them again."

There was therefore no need for her to request deletion. All she had to do was find other topics to write about for future editions. SarahSV (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Sarah, The Signpost is not 'about' to publish anything. What you have seen is an unfinished draft and its publication will be subject to an editorial team decision. For the moment it is just a place holder and we have no intention in publishing anything that is inaccurate. That said, your attention was drawn to the draft header in which you are clearly invited to edit it for accuracy yourself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Kudpung, it has been published (as a draft) or I wouldn't have been able to read it. Please remove the inaccuracy. The dispute that led Barbara to this situation began in 2015, and it has been marred by precisely this kind of misunderstanding over and over again. It needs to stop. She was not asked to delete those templates or change anything about her Signpost article.
Similarly, she was not asked to stop working on the GAN for Monarch butterfly migration. On the contrary, she has been assured by several editors that it isn't affected by the topic ban, but she has decided that it is. These are 100 percent her own decisions and interpretations. SarahSV (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Even if the facts were exactly as you suggest here, that an intelligent woman with a scholarly background, and experience with Wikipedia, who was writing in good faith…and I have never seen the least reason to doubt any of these points, in the least…could get hauled up before the Star Chamber WP:ANI shows the system is broken; the only question is how badly. Qwirkle (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

August

I will do:

  • From the editor
  • From the archives
  • Essay
  • I will not be completing any regular columns or incomplete submissions.

Although I had some articles lined up on other topics, I will not be offering any more features or op-eds. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

We need someone for News and Notes. Should we advertise on a board? — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 16:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Who normally does News & Notes? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
There's no regular feature editor. Evad37 did issue 1; issue 2 was missing the feature; Evad and I did issue 3; issue 4 was Bluerasberry; issue 5 was a group effort; issue 6 was Zarasophos; issue 7 was a group effort and I helped again. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I will do humour, blog and some of the research. In Sept I can take over the archives and Essay, though I prefer not to do this much. Barbara ✐  ✉ 21:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I know this may not be the best time to suggest new activities, but I noticed that Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions has several items that haven't been acknowledged. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Up coming
  • From the editor: In preparation
  • From the archives: In preparation
  • Essay: WP:SURPRISEME by User:EEng . Selected by SoWhy.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Humour restart

For reasons I don't want to go into here, Barbara has withdrawn and the humour article needs a restart. Here are some recommendations if we want to run a prior essay.

I'm not really here ☆ Bri (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

We need some original 'Barbara-style' material. We already have an essay section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
What about User:Barbara (WVS)/Television plot lines by her that got delayed last issue? — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 22:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Jung and Freud are verboten. Reasons. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
okay — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 12:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I do not think the Jung and Freud mentions come under Barbara (WVS)'s TB. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Besides, the stuff's already been written. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 12:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Special report

Possible discrepancy: text says that Safety team has at least nine employees, but the accompanying image displays just seven. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

There are nine, Bri: [1]. The problem is that the staff is such a large pool of people even the Foundation itself no longer knows who works for it or who actually does what. This is the result of having no one in overall control. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost article is displaying thew wrong version of the poster although the link at File:Support & Safety Team.pdf is the right one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
What a totally ugly poster anyway. What awful imagery. What a terrible layout. Who would stop and read such a wall of text? They should at have given the job to someone who has at least a knowledge of the basic concepts of graphic design and text:image balance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. They...and everyone else in that business, because it’s everyone in that business...should also run their job titles by someone who knows his Orwell; trust is earned, not managed. Qwirkle (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, Kudpung, I think that "poster" is an infographic that was created specifically to be a consolidated digital source of information about the topic. In the context of digital infographics, that much information is actually on the lower end. For some reason, creating 20+ MB, 1600x32000-resolution infographics containing hundreds of words appears to be a sort of artistic pastime for some, including those hired by the World Health Organization. Here is an article from 2010 I found which actually talks about this and provides some hefty examples, if you're interested. So, perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but I doubt it was printed out to be placed somewhere physically as a poster—at least, I hope not. If that was also done, then, well... I hope it's near a chair.

Regarding the PNG image of the infographic in the report being incorrect, I simply linked to that PDF file directly, which displays as an image when added to pages. As a result, the image is now correct. Additionally, given that it is unreadable at that size, I have also provided a link to the largest-resolution version of the PDF rendered in an image format, which I found from the file information page. Unfortunately, the rendered format is a JPG, so everything in the image is a bit jagged (my guess is due to the lossy compression of JPG file formats).

On the matter of the report more generally, please be sure to check the changes I made to it and ensure that I did not misunderstand you in any place. Where specifically did you get the information that there were "79 slots in the official programme", 22 of which "were filled by the Foundation"? Was that something you determined, such as by counting the slots yourself? I am asking because I am not finding any information on the number of slots; and, if you counted them yourself, then I am not sure what you mean by "slots" because I have counted the slots in a few different ways, all of which yielded different results. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC); last edited at 23:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Nøkkenbuer, Thank you so much for taking a closer look at this. I took the conference information from here but it's possible I miscounted. The site has also been changed since I last looked at it. I'll look at the other things later today. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Nøkkenbuer, A lot of information does not yet appear to be available. I would have liked to include some attendance statistics and the number of scholsrships that were awarded, the cost of the event, the WMF participation in costs, the amount received for selling adverts and promotion, or example. I still think the article comes out just a tad too critical about the WMF, and it needs some balance. Any help you can provide if you have time would be most appreciated Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Although it does not help in terms of easing the critical tone, Kudpung, it appears that Wikimania had the least number of sponsors and partners this year, especially in terms of diversity, if each Wikimanias' website is any indication. I definitely may be wrong, but that's what I discovered after noticing how few sponsers Wikimania 2018 seemed to have. Whether that is because of the growing and consolidating support of Google, increased self-sustainable funding by the Foundation, waning support for the Foundation, rising criteria for sponsorship mention, or—frankly—the fact that this is the first one to take place in Sub-Saharan Africa (despite being in the whitest and second-wealthiest part of the whole continent), or some combination thereof, is unclear. I do find it interesting, though, and would love to see a full transparency report accounting for funding. Unfortunately, I have yet to find anything like that. Perhaps it's worth a mention anyway? Or is it too trivial or speculative, especially given the absence of transparent funding information?
As for soothing the critical tone, I don't know how much help I can provide there or where to find such data balms, especially since I tend to be the critical sort. I'll search anyway, but in the end it may just be that there is a lot to criticize and so a critical tone is due. If I find anything worthwhile, I'll of course report it here. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC); edited at 02:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again, Nøkkenbuer. Those stats do get published but I can't remember if it's long after the event. That said, if the event had been truly successful, they would normally want to publish those details as soon as possible. It's 9am here and I'm now in the office for the day. I'll check back when I get home this evening. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Sure, no problem, Kudpung. I'll continue searching around today and, when I have time, until publication. I doubt I'll find much. I hope you have a great day! —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
According to Attendees, 129 stated they were definitely (100% likely) going (I didn't count, my text editor did), 1 said probably (75% likely), 2 said they were unsure (50% likely), 0 said probably not (25% likely), and 2 said definitely not (0% likely). Those are all pre-Wikimania attendee (intendee?) counts, though. Given I cannot find any post-Wikimania counts, that may be the closest we have to an attendance record until one is published—if one is published. Hopefully, that and the rest is before publication. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The pre-conference estimate was "projecting 650+ Wikimaniacs, but it could be larger depending on local attendance." Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
We already had some coverage in last month's issue of the research-related part of Wikimania. I have added a "see also" link to that - hope that works for you, Kudpung. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

In the media

Hitchens community ban

I'm still "not really here" so: sorry to dump this in the lap of whoever can handle it. We have a public figure community blocked as Clockback. This should be double checked to make sure all terms and dates are correct. Swarm told me that the block is same as community ban. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Per WP:CBAN, a block that goes to the community for review and is endorsed by the community is considered to be a community ban. I just used the term “community block” to help the user understand the fact that the block’s status would/had changed with their failed attempt at a community appeal. It is not actually “correct” terminology as it is not used officially anywhere, AFAIK, and it might create the impression the the community imposed, rather than simply upheld, the block. More correct terminology would probably be “blocked indefinitely, which was endorsed by the community”, or to put that same concept more simply, “community banned”. Swarm ♠ 19:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

"Wikimedia releases clothing"

Another due diligence: I confirmed with WMF that "Wikimedia releases clothing" is a legit story and the seller, Advisory Board Crystals, is authorized to sell logo merchandise, and WMF is to receive proceeds as reported by Vice and others. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Evans blocked again

I'm not sure where best to put this, but Jack Evans (D.C. politician) got blocked from Wikipedia again. The Administrators' noticeboard discussion about it can be seen here (permanent link), still fresh and developing. Might this be worth mentioning? We can be among the first to pick it up, but we may also help publicize it, which may or may not be good for Wikipedia's public image. Thoughts? —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, to criticize my own post: Firstly, it's not like The Signpost has ever been very interested in shielding Wikipedia or the WMF from criticism, this issue and numerous recent and distant past ones demonstrating as much. Secondly, this seriously could go either way in terms of public image, but that initial reporting I linked above treated the situation very fairly and, in my opinion, the Wikipedia community comes across as being diligent and considerate of ensuring neutral coverage in articles. I support inclusion.
I wish the article would use diffs and oldids throughout, though, since those live links will be broken once the section is renamed or archived or the user page information changes. In not doing so, readers of the article may initially mistake the absence of the section or information as evidence of suppression or a cover-up on Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors reading it will know how to find the information, but the audience for that piece is not us. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC); edited at 07:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I included it. I hope that's fine. If not, remove it. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent research

This section has exactly one entry which I wrote. The section will probably be pulled from issue 9 unless someone steps up. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

As noted in the newsroom last week in the standard notice regarding "Recent research", I'm working on this. I will get it into publishable form as usual today. (It will be a bit shorter than last month's edition, but I have enough content lined up.) As discussed below, there may have been some miscommunication regarding the exact interpretation of the writing deadline. For my part I had been anticipating to set aside some time today to get it done before midnight UTC. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
So just so we're all on the same page we are going to wait till the original pub cutoff, 23:59 2018-08-28 UTC, to give this section time to develop. That's more or less end of the West Coast USA workday Tuesday. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, should be publishable now if need be. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Blog

Blog import tool is FUBAR of course because of the move to Wordpress. @Ed Erhart (WMF): would you like to take this on? Our deadline is very soon but we could extend to, say, Wednesday if you need more time. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T202956
We won't be able to republish blog posts anymore, since the new site has a CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence, which is incompatible with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence per Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources - Evad37 [talk] 02:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Unless we contact individual authors of posts we want to republish, ask them to also release their posts under CC-BY-SA 3.0, and record their response in OTRS like we do for images. - Evad37 [talk] 02:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Pre-publication draft

Issue 9 can be previewed at User:Bri/Signpost2018-08-28. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way I'll be available part-time for a few days to help get this out the door. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Updated again, User:Bri/Signpost2018-08-28 should basically be identical to what gets published tomorrow; all the titles and blurbs are there and we have pulled the sections Recent research, Arbitration report and Blog. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Arb. Report

If the Arbitration Report is empty on Tuesday, I’ll cover it. I know it’s cutting it close, but that’s the earliest I can get it done. I will self-CE if that works best. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 20:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

There isn't much to talk about. No new cases at WP:ARC. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I looked at ArbN and the German war effort case closed. If that’s something that would normally go in the Signpost, I’ll copypaste the post, cut it down a bit for space maybe, and put a thing at the top saying there were no new cases. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 01:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. You may want to report any discrepancies from my issue 8 projection There will be no new discretionary sanctions, LargelyRecyclable will be banned, K.e.coffman will face no tangible sanctions, and the status quo will stand with respect to community participation in contentious discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
E-in-C has noted this as postponed till September. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

News and notes

I am about to publish a series of edits at "News and notes". I say "about" because this is a prepublication documentation of the changes which I will be linking in the edit summaries as an extended log of sorts rather than summarizing therein, and I say "a series of edits" because I will be splitting them to retain some semblance of diff readability so that they can be easily reviewed.

I am doing it this way because I significantly changed the article, beyond what usual copy-editing may include; thus, it warrants attention from the editorial board to review, especially since the byline is the Editor-in-Chief. Moreover, I consider it important to provide descriptive summaries of my edits. However, by the time I was much of the way through with my editing (I tend to hyperfocus during editing when I know the scope of what I need to edit, so I sometimes forget to stop and publish my work), I realized that the character limit for the edit summaries precluded sufficient summarization without me engaging in post-hoc segmentation that would have been more prolific than this and at least as difficult. Anyway, given I am concerned that some of my changes will likely provoke at least some discussion, I might as well do the not-so-easy task of making it easy for the editorial board to do so. Part of that includes modifying or removing any of the changes listed below at your discretion rather than you doing so, if you prefer me to do so.

The following is an itemized list summarizing the changes, numbered for the sake of clarity and discussion if it occurs. {{Bang}}s (exclamation mark ) indicate those I consider especially important to note and review.

  1. In my first edit, I...
    1. terminated the blurb with a full stop per convention;
    2. conformed the titles to match each other;
    3. removed the "fullwidth" block specification per convention;
    4. removed the {{Signpost inline image}} of File:Gypful.jpg at the top, which appears to have been a placeholder;
    5. exclamation mark  added a {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Filler image-v2}} of File:Katherine Maher.jpg at the top; (replaced)
    6. {{clear}}ed the image from edit 1.5 to avoid the first {{Quote box}} being compacted; (removed due to poor formatting after edit 1.5's image was replaced)
    7. provided an external link to the Oxford Dictionaries definition for "executive";
    8. exclamation mark  converted the pseudo–external links to interwikilinks, and added and modified them for further detail and clarity throughout the whole article;
    9. exclamation mark  reworded the paragraphs, added some information, cleaned up and added wikilinks, and changed various punctuation throughout the whole article;
    10. exclamation mark  corrected archived email link to the one MZMcBride actually sent and moved original link down to appropriate place;
    11. exclamation mark  past-tensed the events of the first section from MZMcBride's part going forward;
    12. modified the captions and alt text;
    13. exclamation mark  corrected the Phabricator ticket information, namely that the creator of the ticket was Dan Garry, not Faidon Liambotis;
    14. exclamation mark  added further detail from the Phabricator ticket about who would have access, using a May reply with quotes;
    15. exclamation mark  expanded analysis of the web development team's purported contributions to 5 billion articles with data from Special:Statistics
    16. exclamation mark  slightly modified the second and third section titles;
    17. removed pseudosection semi-colon, wrapped the WMF spending update in a {{Signpost inline quote}}, and removed the list gaps;
    18. added a sentence noting with wikilinks the original analysis from the February 2017 Signpost op-ed;
    19. exclamation mark  updated the total participants in the first RfA from 317 to 318 (are we excluding bots?) and the result from 70% to the technically more accurate 69.5%;
    20. namelessly noted the 1 recusal;
    21. exclamation mark  expanded the RfA section with a small bit of information I considered important about the Jimbo talk discussion that indicates its relevance to the RfA, namely that the RfA was discussed there and Jimbo himself "completely agree[d]" with Carrite's point about 70% support being a "rejection" as proof of the RfA system being broken, all with diffs;
    22. updated information about the second RfA; and
    23. exclamation mark  added {{Signpost quote}} to the first "In brief" entry and added a diff sourcing the addition from WP:POST/TIPS with the section title as the piped text.
  1. In my second edit, I...
    1. collapsed the first {{Quote box}}, rearranged the parameters, added |author= and right-aligned it, and increased the width from 25% to 33% to accommodate the "fullwidth" removal in edit 1.3;
    2. exclamation mark  removed italicization for the website quotes, expanded them with the formerly elided text, and wrapped them in {{Signpost inline quote}}s;
    3. moved the second editor's note out of the prose and to the bottom of the {{Signpost inline image}};
    4. cleaned up the letterhead-class {{Quote box}} and implemented some CSS styling to improve its HTML semantics and its visual formatting, centering its alignment to ensure the other paragraphs don't wrap around or before it like it otherwise would in different browser window sizes;
    5. {{clear}}ed the space above the letterhead quote box to avoid the image encroaching it; and
    6. cleaned up the testimonial quote box and modified parameters to likewise avoid confusing text wrapping and improve visual display.
  1. In my third edit (plus one), I...
    1. rearranged the images, which was withheld for the sake of diff readability; and
    2. cleaned up line breaking and implemented paragraphing that was withheld for the sake of diff readability.
  1. In (what would have been) my fourth edit, I...
    1. exclamation mark  implemented minor cleanup of the user quotes.
  1. In (what would have been) my fifth edit, I...
    1. exclamation mark  added an editorial note documenting the slight modifications.

As a note, I considered neutering MZMcBride, but decided against it since we have referred to him as "him" in the past and so it would be cruel to deprive him of his manhood. Yes, this is also a dog-related joke.

If any of the above changes are problematic or unacceptable, or if the method I used here to explain these changes was, or if anything else about what I have done is, naturally please let me know. I apologize in advance, and probably will again, if that is so. I am being bold here; I just hope I'm not also being reckless. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC); updated at 02:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

As an addendum, yes I made sure to retain and edit all the changes that occurred from all other editors whose edits were published while I was working. I made it a point to check the page history multiple times immediately before publishing. Checking again after it's all published now, I will note that no edit was lost. Also, I forgot to ping Kudpung, so I'm doing so now. I hope you find the changes to be acceptable. I see Bri already is aware of this, but I'll ping anyway in case not. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Nøkkenbuer thank you so much again for all your hard work. I'll go through everything one last time before publication but your thoroughness is so good, I doubt that I will find anything I nead to revert. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Nøkkenbuer Nothing found. I wish I could think of a way to attribute your contributions. Maybe you don't want - it's up to you entirely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
The attribution in the edit history is more than enough for me. If a permissive copyleft license existed which prohibited non-anonymous attribution (I'm aware of none), I'd consider licensing any work I do under that. What interests me is contributing to the betterment of whatever community I'm in, not accreditation thereof. I appreciate the thought, and frankly cannot reasonably stop you if you decide to attribute in some way, but I am satisfied with just knowing that my changes were taken as improvements by others. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC); last edited at 04:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Quick clarification on inaccuracies in draft article

Hello @Nøkkenbuer, Kudpung, and Bri: quick clarification on some inaccuracies in this draft article. The new Wikimedia Foundation website is a project developed with Mule Design, as documented on Meta-Wiki, and involved over 100 people from within the Wikimedia movement (not vendors) as mentioned in this email. The details you have refer to the design vendors from last year’s Wikimedia Foundation Annual Report, and who were not involved with the new Foundation website project. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello GVarnum-WMF, thank you for providing these corrections. Since this is Kudpung's article—as he started the draft, performed the research, and authored the preponderence of it—and he is the Editor-in-Chief this month, I'll leave it up to him what he ultimately wants to do about that section. I don't have any official role here at The Signpost; I just provide some copy-editing and minor contributions as part of my uninvolved interest in supporting the magazine. That was also the case for this article.
With that said, given the situation, I have submitted the changes you specified myself; I hope that is satisfactory and that neither Kudpung nor Bri mind. Regardless, they can change it as they see fit and perhaps find another use for the deleted text. They can expand that section with commentary about Mule Design, as well, but that is something I'll leave for them to consider. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC); last edited at 00:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
As an update, I noticed some more text that no longer has its context due to the above removals, so I have removed it, too. A complete comparison of the changes can be seen here. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC); last edited at 00:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Bri, Nøkkenbuer, we'll publish as per Nøkkenbuer's changes. However, it clearly states at https://annual.wikimedia.org/2017/ on the site that the site was 'Created in collaboration with Public, SF and Mangrove Web Development' I have never seen the black and white site and I'm almost certain I took he information from the blue site from which I took the screenshot. The testimonial I included in the draft was not imagined, so on what project were the outside companies involved? In the interests of full transparency, we'll investiugate further and report again in next month's Signpost. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Perhaps I'm mistaken, Kudpung, but I understood GVarnum-WMF to have been saying that, while the Wikimedia 2017 report page was indeed developed and designed by Public and Mangrove, and praised by McCune, they were not involved in the development of the new WordPress site. Those were two separate projects and, for the WordPress site, a different team (Mule Design) coordinated with various Wikimedia members to develop it.
From what I read, nothing that was said before was untrue about the things they talked about, at least as isolated data, but the problem was that two separate projects at different times were being conflated as one and described as Public and Mangrove working on the WordPress site when that was a previous project. The latter is what Varnum seems to mean by "inaccuracies". The Public and Mangrove work may be old news, then, at least in that they worked on designing the 2017 report whereas the new WordPress site is a result of a soft launch last month. It may still be worth reporting, especially if it seems nobody else has, but—again, if I understood correctly—it isn't recent news. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC); last edited at 05:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Nøkkenbuer In which case does this mean that Public and Mangrove were paid for work that was never used? And where did I get my information and the testimonial from if I had not seen the earlier project? This is all very confusing and while we attempt to obtain some transparency even if it's old news, we don't want to do the WMF an injustice in our reporting. We are publishing your re-edited version but will follow up next month. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I presume the work for which they were compensated was designing the 2017 Annual Report page, Kudpung. The testimonial is from Mangrove's testimonial page for the WMF (at the bottom), which has screenshots of the design used in the 2017 Annual Report page. If I were to guess what happened, it is that you might have mistook annual.wikimedia.org (or maybe just wikimedia.org) as the WordPress site (which is wikimediafoundation.org). The screenshot is of the latter WordPress site, though. Alternatively, perhaps you went to WikimediaFoundation.org's "About Page", clicked on the 2017 annual report, scrolled down to the bottom of the page, and noticed Public and Mangrove as the designers in the footer without noticing that you hopped to a different website altogether?
If something like this is what happened, then it's not a surprise to me, since the WMF (and larger Wikimedia movement) has so many different websites segregating and compartmentalizing the content that I still find myself occasionally discovering a new site associated with the network. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Technology report

@Evad37: is the technology report ready for copyedit? Any new content on the rails? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think there's anything more to add. - Evad37 [talk] 02:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Call-out to copyeditors

Calling User:Megalibrarygirl, User:Barbara (WVS), User:Bluerasberry ... We have several sections just waiting for copyedit to be ready for publication. Please check Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article status for things to do, if you are able. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bri will do! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Ready for press

The after-party for Issue 9 is getting an early start. Thanks Kudpung for your steady hand at the tiller and for getting us here without running aground. You're welcome back onboard anytime.

Issue 9 is ready when E-in-C reviews and approves. I've generated a fresh (and final?) draft preview at User:Bri/Signpost2018-08-28. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Bri, I have just taken a quick run through your latest prototype. I think everything's ok so I'm authorising publication. I do realise that this month's issue comes out quite critical of the WMF in several respects, but we're not here to curry favour with them - as eveyone knows, I'm always on the side of the Wikipedia we represent and not its 'owners' the WMF. Since its inception, the WMF has been constanly rocked with scandal, and whether this month's issues reports scandals or not, I think we are correct in reporting what we find - these issues may serve as a knee jerk to the Foundation, maybe not, so publish and be damned. After this month someone else will be taking the respnsibility for The Signpost and also taking the responsibility for hatting or removing inappropriate reader comments; other newspapers are selective in what they publish and this in no way as censorship. We need to look now for a new E-in-C. I know that your time is at a premium but I can't think of anyone better than you, unless one of the former Chief Eds wants wants to come back. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Sadly, real-life commitments mean that my Wiki service will be decreasing this year, not increasing. I don't think I could fill the shoes of an E in C adequately. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Bri and Kudpung: I made some edits to the traffic report page.[2] I don't think I broke anything, but please double check. — JFG talk 10:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Chris troutman maestro, please push the buttons and turn the cranks for issue 9! Thank you ☆ Bri (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
    While we have been waiting, Bri, I have done some last-minute work on the articles, most significantly this, this, and this at Recent research; and this at Featured content. The latter in particular may deserve review given I didn't just fill out content, but also added some content (namely images), as well. I would not be submitting it if I didn't think it was acceptable for publication, but maybe I'm missing something such as adding too many images.
    Anyway, I did not expect to have the time and opportunity to go through all the articles, but I have now. I will try to add alt text to the Gallery and Traffic report if I can make the edits before publication, but that is the last I see left to do. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Should be fine as long as there's no edit collision during publishing. Maybe Chris troutman will want to drop a note here before he starts the process. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Bri and Kudpung: I had a long day at work and am now starting the publishing. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
It gave me time to do more work myself, and this is still on schedule, so I'm not complaining about the time. Thanks for publishing. I had two alt texts prepared for the Gallery, not much work, but I'll scrap it and not submit them since you're now publishing. Now, with it published, I can finally catch back up on some sleep. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Delay

With Bri and myself having very limited time time this month for all the cleaning up and preparation for the August issue, there may well be a delay getting it out. It may also not have the same quantity of content. Suggestions welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, if it's any consolation, Kudpung, I'm watching the activity and I'm prepared to begin editing (no sooner than tomorrow) whenever the |Ready-for-copyedit= parameters start changing to yes. Until then, I don't want to interrupt your work, so I have remained away. As for suggestions, I have one for you to consider. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm mentally preparing to publish on Wednesday, 29 August (Pacific Time). Any problems with that? At this point it looks like we won't have a Blog section nor Recent research. Last month we sort of pushed this off to WMF, but I don't know if they assigned someone to it. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I think would be OK, let's see what comes in at the last minute. I really want to include the results of an RfA that is scheduled to close today - unless it goes to a 'crat chat. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
That said, with the magazine now being a monthly publication, there is really no excuse for late submissions from regular, but not editorial team contributors. Recent Research is always late and they should be given a deadline of a week earlier or their column will not appear. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm watching your discussion; I'll plan to publish Wednesday. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I was initially hesitant to post this, not wanting to effect any change here, but now with § Call-out to copyeditors new above I might as well: Due to me having been busy with a variety of urgent matters both on- and off-wiki, I have unfortunately not done as much work as I intended this month. If the publication date stays at the 30 August deadline, I might be able to finish going over every article, since I won't be editing much if at all on 28 August. Given that the preponderance of my edits are either pedantic or expansive and superfluous in both cases, however, I discourage delaying it simply because of these concerns. The publication is already largely fine as it is, so 29 August may be as well. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC); last edited at 04:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
After some reconsideration, I'd say that "might" is on the lower half of the probability percentage. Regardless, I want to note that I don't want anyone to mistake what I said above as saying that other editors or copy-editors are unneeded or unwanted (or, $DIETY-forbid, unwelcome!). The more the better and I invite anyone interested to do so. As a study that I think was mentioned in one of the Recent research installments said, the more cooks in the kitchen on article development, the better the article turns out on average (well, after about 5,000 revisions). —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 06:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Folks, as former Signpost editor-in-chief myself, who got an issue published every week for over a year (and mostly on time), I know the value of having a precise, serious publication deadline, and as current section editor for "Recent research", I'm happy to do my part so we can get issues out by the planned date. (My huge respect to the current team for getting the Signpost back on track in this regard, after a long period where the schedule had become more and more unpredictable.)
But we seem to have some miscommunication about the precise meaning of the deadline dates here. I understand "Writing: 28 August" in the sense that the text should come in during that day at the latest (i.e. 11:59pm UTC would, while not ideal, still be OK - after all that's why there is a space of two extra days afterwards until the separate publication deadline). This is also how we have been communicating the writing deadline to the contributors we invite to write reviews for "Recent research" in our usual process for this section. Now I see complaints that "Recent Research is always late" even though in fact I had taken care to bring the section into a publishable state by the given day (e.g. last month the original writing deadline was July 27 and I marked the content of "Recent research" as ready for publication on 03:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC), etc.) If that is because "August 28" is really to be understood as "before August 28", I would suggest communicating that less ambiguously, e.g. by adding a precise time (and timezone) to the deadline as stated in the Newsroom.
Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
PS: And I had even asked the acting Editor-in-Chief whether my interpretation of that "July 27" deadline as "EOD July 27" was correct, to which he replied in the affirmative. Again, it's fine if folks prefer to have everything in a day earlier, but we need to make sure everyone is on the same page about the timing. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Tbayer (WMF) it's probably my fault for the confusion, being almost a day apart in time zones. That said however, even though we have a month to get an issue of The Signpost together, we do not have the editorial capacity to complete and check last minute submissions that you had in those days. It remains to be seen if in fact there will even be another publication, because I'm now out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there a specific time that the deadline is set at? It seems to me that would clear up some confusion. Is it 12:00 AM UTC (8:00 PM EDT)? If not, that’s what I recommend. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 17:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It is — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 13:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Traffic report

I would like to thank A lad insane, igordebraga, JFG, and Stormy clouds for their excellent column this month. Well done! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, we of the WP:TOP25 are always here to help. (specially this edition, where our page will cover up the lack of a Humor section) igordebraga ≠ 03:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Last month - August

Just noting two things. One, for transparency: post-publication, I changed the image and caption that was selected for my review in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-08-30/Recent research. Two, the reader response to "WMF hires a spam outfit", our coverage of WMF and privacy (i.e. data spill), is heating up. Unfortunately it includes accusation of misogyny against one of us, which of course I think is unwarranted and distracting from the meat of the discussion. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Future steps for The Signpost

I want to thank those of you who regularly contribute to this publication and keep it moving forward. I am familiar with the amount of time that is required to publish good quality work, especially on a consistent basis. I want to especially thank Kudpung because without him I am not sure that the Signppost would have experienced its recent revival. Kudpung sometimes has made editorial decisions that are different than I would have made, but overall I am most grateful for his sincere efforts here.

I realize that this may seem like wishing for the moon, but one of my long term hopes is to obtain non-WMF funding for Signpost journalism. The money would probably be modest at best, but I think that given the work-like level of commitment required and the significant sacrifices involved in producing high quality Signpost issues, that funding for part-time Signpost work would be appropriate. I am not in a position to provide that funding personally, but I would do so if I had the means. What I am better positioned to do is to try to obtain non-WMF funding for the Signpost and other public interest activities on Wikimedia that I think are both valuable to the public (directly or indirectly) and that are not funded by WMF for various reasons. This revenue may be months or years away, but I thought that I would let you know that I am interested in arranging funding in the medium to long term.

Regards,

--Pine✉ 01:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Pine Thank you so much for the kind words. It's been discussed here already, but I doubt that the WMF would fund such a project. It's very difficult these days to get them to fund anything for local Wikipedia needs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Precisely. This is why looking for a modest amount of non-WMF funding sounds like a jolly good idea. — JFG talk 10:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
So they can spend money on lobbying[1], paid editing[2], sending employees to concerts[1], Knowledge Engine, MoodBar, Flow, VisualEditor, MediaViewer, and Superprotect, but not The Signpost? SMH — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 14:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
That claim the Foundation is an alarming allegation, pythoncoder. But looking at the source -- a Register article from 2012 -- I find it wasn't the Foundation that sent staffers to a concert, but Wikimedia Deutschland who allocated €18,000 to volunteers for costs -- which I assume include travel, food, & housing -- related to acquiring photos & other materials about said concert. I have no problem with volunteers being reimbursed for costs providing content for Wikimedia projects. -- llywrch (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
trout Self-trout — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • As a last task, I've added to the coloured table all the colums that usually, or often appear. If there are no submissions, they won't be published, but it shows what can be submitted if contributors are williing. I think this should be the default list to reappear when the publishing tool deletes the previous one.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/
  2. ^ This month's Signpost issue

Any room for a gnome?

I've been wanting to contribute to The Signpost for a while now but I don't think I have the time (or attention span) right now to actually write articles, especially since I edit on my work computer, which doesn't allow me to go to external domains other than Wikipedia.org, even other Wikimedia projects. I do notice that you have quite a few copy editors; I'd be glad to help in that regard if needed. However, I think I'm better suited, if it would actually help or save time at all, to small tedious tasks (you can see that my specialty tends to be wikilinking), so if you wanted, I could insert templates, add the {{U|User}} links to quotes, and other little robot-like tasks. Of course, I am available for copy editing either way, I just might not be able to be quite as consistent with that currently. Regardless of what I'm able to do now, I do hope to make larger contributions someday, including entire articles if I'm lucky. ♥Acorimori♦ 01:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Acorri, thanks very much for your interest in helping. I regret to say that the Signpost Editor-in-Chief position is vacant again, so I don't know if or when the next issue will be published. I'm pinging @Bri: with the hope that he can respond with an update about the near future of the Signpost, and how you might be able to contribute. --Pine✉ 04:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Acorri and thanks for dropping by! We have a full "quick start" guide for new contributors, suggest having a look there. A few more suggestions for (ir)regular contributions: 1) update the traffic report from the Top25. It's fairly simple cut/paste, trim the list of 25 to 10 and add dated headers as appropriate. 2) Find brief items for In the Media -- search for "wikipedia" in a web-based news aggregator often returns good results. Or scan Jimbo's talkpage or Women in Red talkpage. Wikipedia:Press coverage 2018#September has a dozen items that could be copied over, too. 3) If you are a Wiki "insider", you probably know where to go for Discussion report tidbits. 4) Any and all help on column copyediting especially as we get within 3-4 days of publication at end of the month. All the links for items 1 through 3 on the upcoming issue are at WP:NEWSROOM.
Unfortunately we don't really have a concrete plan for how to keep things rolling here. My time will be limited, but I will try to keep things rolling with regular issues and see who shows up. It may mean publishing with limited content for a while. Maybe people will notice and decide to contribute, like you.
Again, thanks, hope you can find time to join the Newsroom team, and even a little bit of help is appreciated. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I did look at the Quick Start before posting this, I just wasn't sure how much help I would actually be ^^; I could probably do the Traffic Report, I looked closer and it looks like I could probably handle the formatting pretty easily. I would totally cover In the Media too since it looks like the kind of thing I could have fun with but, again, I can't currently use any search engines on my primary computer, even Google, so I'll have to pass that one up for now. Should I start working on the Traffic Report right now...? Or would it be better to wait and see how this issue pans out...? ♥Acorimori♦ 18:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the team!  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've got a good start on the Traffic Report. Any advice so far? ♥Acorimori♦ 00:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Next month - September

I won't be E-in-C any more, but I will be proposing a special report on NPP/NPR, how ACPERM has affected it, the new features in the New Pages Feed, the problems of finding enough active reviewers and getting the API up dated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I may or may not be submitting this. It depends how I feel. And at the moment, I don't feel much like doing anything more for Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

It appears somebody set up us the writing deadline as September 28, which sounds good to me. There are a few regular articles that stand out:

  • News and Notes: No permanent writer; this seems to be another time when we need all hands on deck as this is arguably the Signpost’s flagship column.
  • Featured Content: Bri has been less active lately (see recent discussions). Eddie891 contributed to last issue's article.
  • Arbitration Report: Bri — see above.

I might be able to pitch in on FC and AR if needed. If anyone has any updates, please add them below; it is greatly appreciated. In this time of transition the Signpost needs all the help it can get. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

9 days to the writing deadline. Are we publishing this month?  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 14:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Not again!  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 15:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Bri and Evad37: I'm standing by. It was my understanding this production had no shortage of article contributors. I would tend to want to push out a thin volume than nothing at all. Please let me know. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree that publishing something is better than nothing. Will reply further later today. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Blog is back

The blog licencing issue has been resolved, so we are once more able to republish posts. I would suggest the National Museum of Brazil preservation drive, unless something more interesting comes along. - Evad37 [talk] 02:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

European Union Article 13

Is anybody here feeling up to writing a special report on Article 13 and its impact on Wikipedia/Wikimedia? We started something back in the June issue In the media. Now that it's passed, probably a good opportunity to go into detail. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I included a quickie on this as a lead story in the upcoming News and notes feature. If anybody wants to contribute, we could use better laying out of the context, upcoming legislative/regulatory process, and (predicted) outcomes for Wikipedia and other online entities. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Issue status

Gathering input from contributors for issue 10. I'd like to keep it a September issue. I think we would prefer to include Tech Report, In the Media and Discussion Report, which have all been started. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

We can also include the "Blog", "Traffic report", "Humour", and "Essay" features, Bri, which are more or less ready for publication (pending review). Additionally, "Arbitration report" and "Gallery" can be included, though I have yet to touch them for the same reason that I haven't touched the ones you mentioned: |Ready-for-copyedit= is not set to yes, so it is unclear whether I should. I have no clue whether "Recent research" will be included this issue, but if any research is added to the page, we can include that as well.
Overall, assuming most of the latter are included, this may turn out to be a standard issue—at least in terms of features—with only "From the editor" and "Op-ed" missing for obvious reasons. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
"Recent research" is now publishable too if need be (I have left "Copyedit-done" unchecked so far, also because I understand that this step can happen in the time between the writing deadline and the publication deadline - but it would not be a dealbreaker here). Regarding "no clue", I had actually left the usual newsroom note last week; but always feel free to follow up in case something is unclear. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I apologize, Tbayer (WMF), I entirely forgot about that message. I simply checked the page and didn't bother to re-read the notes. You did nothing wrong here and I have no complaints or suggestions. It was just an embarrassing lapse on my part, which I will blame stress and sleep. Thanks for re-clueing me. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

That's good to know other sections on their way, but I was too terse ... I meant I was following up specifically with the eds for Tech Report, In the Media and Discussion Report because it's unclear if they will be finished in time for issue. Anyway, glad the usual suspects are on board! I'll have a little more time to pitch in Saturday AM (Pacific time). ☆ Bri (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding. In any case, today will almost certainly be the last day I will be available for this month's publication. If any further copy-editing is needed by the time you are available Saturday, I will probably not be here to help. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Calling @Megalibrarygirl, Barbara (WVS), and Bluerasberry: ... any other contributors, please copyedit the sections that are ready. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to mention: I'm still available to copy-edit as well, Bri. Technically this is still the last day for me, since I haven't ended it yet. I decided that I might as well stick around for however long it takes help finish whatever else is needed to be done (or at least try), since caffeine is abundant and sleep is more a postpublication activity, anyway. I've just waiting for the green light on the remaining articles to avoid being an edit conflict nuisance. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
As an update, Bri, I have now finished a full review of every feature for this month at least once, with the exception of the "From the archives" feature. I may reread them all a few more times, but the bulk of my editing appears to be done. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nøkkenbuer and everyone else, thanks so much for your help on the issue. @Chris troutman: This looks like it's on a glidepath for publication Sunday mid-day or so (Pacific time) ... is this compatible with your schedule? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Trying my best to contribute. I have taken on a real-life-tech job and I am also working overtime. Glad to help but can't do much more. I will try and put in more effort for next month. You guys are great! Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 23:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Issue is shaping up well. We still need a couple of things copyedited, and From the archives appears to be incomplete. I really want to get this out with a September date, which means starting publication in the next ~6 hours. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Usually, "From the archives" is the easiest and first feature to be ready for publication, since it's just a copy-and-paste republication of a prior article with a couple sentences of preface. This month, however, it seems something different is being done. I am supportive of that and I am very interested about the result. However, as reluctant as I am to say it, we can postpone the current "From the archives" feature until next month and replace the current one with another quick copypaste, like was done last month with the "Gallery" feature. Doing so would allow more time to perfect the current article while also ensuring there is something complete to publish.
So long as the piece will definitely be done before publication deadline (which is about eight hours away), this suggestion is unnecessary. If not, though, then perhaps we should shift to postponing and replacing it. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Bri: Standing by. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
We may just have to go to press without the FtA feature and save it for an upcoming issue. Haven't heard anything new from Barbara (WVS), assume she is tied up elsewhere. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I think that's it. @Chris troutman:, please light the Roman candle and hold it in your hand (publish issue 10) ☆ Bri (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent research

Jtmorgan, while verifying and reviewing the research in the "Recent research" feature, I noticed that "Stigmergic Coordination in Wikipedia" (PDF) was an article presented at OpenSym (and the article following the one you reviewed), which did seem to demonstrate some stigmergic behavior among Wikipedia editors. I am confident you are probably already aware of this, but is there any reason why this wasn't mentioned? Is it being saved for a future issue? If there was no reason for this omission, I can code it in as a brief mention in your review. Otherwise, this article might be worth mention in a future issue. Courtesy ping for Tbayer, as well. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 06:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

After some thought, and given how it will not be done any justice with just a brief mention, it is probably best to save this paper for another time if it is included at all. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Probably just as well that we don't have two items about stigmergic behavior in one issue. People would think we're on some kind of stealth vocabulary trip :) ☆ Bri (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
There is value in covering several related papers together in one issue (I just did so with five biography-related ones), but it's not obligatory ;)
Besides, in this case the two papers seem kind of complementary - the one Jtmorgan reviewed studies editor collaboration via talk pages, whereas the OpemSym paper studies cases of editor collaboration where talk pages are not used. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
If you want to include it, Tbayer (WMF) and everyone else, I'm fine with doing so. I can code it right now, too. (I discovered I have some more time today.) Alternatively, it can be published next month as a followup with a mention of coverage the prior month. I think it would best fit this month, but I understand the time constraints. If necessary, I can also write the section myself, assuming I have the time. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Here is a suggested summary section for everyone to consider, especially Bri and Tbayer (WMF):

On the matter of stigmergy, another paper presented at OpenSym 2018 titled "Stigmergic Coordination in Wikipedia" investigated evidence for just that.[1] From the abstract: "Using a novel approach to identifying edits to the same part of a Wikipedia article, we show that a majority of edits to two example articles are not associated with discussion on the article Talk page, suggesting the possibility of stigmergic coordination. However, discussion does seem to be related to article quality, suggesting the limits to this approach to coordination."

Although the researchers only analyzed two articles, namely Abraham Lincoln and Business from the English Wikipedia, they concluded that "the data presented in this paper suggest that a substantial fraction of the edits made on Wikipedia are coordinated without explicit discussion on the Talk pages", which they hypothesize as representative of stigmergic coordination. In fact, it appears that the majority of edits analyzed demonstrated stigmergic behavior; although this may be obvious for minor edits and fixing vandalism, the stigmergy was apparent even in substantial edits. Moreover, due to the "overly strict operationalization" they used in gathering and analyzing the data, these analyses my be underestimating the reality of stigmergic editing in Wikipedia.

If this is acceptable and you recommend inclusion, I or another can insert it right below Jtmorgan's review as a tier-three addendum to it. I have no interest in being attributed, but unfortunately I suspect that will be necessary to avoid implying that it is part of Jtmorgan's review. Regardless, it is up to you. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Please include. I'll be requesting publication to start as soon as this is done. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I have added the section, whose title is simply the title of the paper, along with self-attribution. To conform to Headbomb's last-minute changes to the references, I have modified the reference code, as well. It's too late to discuss those changes and although I prefer the version prior to the changes, this is largely a difference in our respective citation styles and publication takes priority. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The text looks great, thanks! I have added one small clarification. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Headbomb, are you willing to elaborate on your rationale for your changes to the citations in "Recent research"? I ask because the prior versions were largely consistent with every "Recent research" feature since I began editing them, starting in June 2018's issue, due to this being how I fill out citations; the usage of {{open access}}, {{free access}}, and {{closed access}} predates my involvement. I prefer more detailed citations (and thus prefer mine), but if I better understand why you made these changes, then perhaps I will change how I edit the "Recent research" feature, as well. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Mostly, I got rid of identifiers that didn't pertain to the article itself, leaving those for Wikidata, made proper use of {{cite arxiv}} over {{cite journal}} when appropriated, got rid of redundancy of conference (it's obvious that the Proceedings of the 11th Foobar Conference was for the 11th Foobar Conference), and if you have |doi-access=free/|url-access=subscription, then it marks those specific link as free/closed access since appending {{free access}}/{{closed access}} is ambiguous about which links those cover. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, Headbomb. As you probably noticed, I tend to fill citation templates more extensively, which some have described as superfluous and redundant even if technically correct data entry. Given the edits you made, do you recommend against filling out parameters in citations unless the data are pertinent according to certain criteria? How many degrees of separation from X is do you think disqualifies a particular datum from inclusion? What is that X? For example, why did you decide to exclude |publisher=journal's publisher from the citations?
As for the access templates, I inferred that their inclusion was to indicate the access status when not immediately obvious, and to disambiguate free-access articles from open-access ones—the latter of which, to my understanding, is not possible with CS1 parameters, since |*-access=open is not valid. I was primarily following what appeared to have been implicit convention prior to my July-issue participation, however, so my rationale for using it may not reflect the prior intent. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC); edited at 20:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Basically, no style guide out there recommended/required including publishers for journals (unlike books, which is recommended/required to include the publisher). That information is fine in Wikidata, but it is very idiosyncratic to include that information in a journal citation. And you don't want |doi-access=open, you want |doi-access=free. See Help:Citation Style 1#Registration or subscription required for more details. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
It does not surprise me that external style guides generally do not, but Wikipedia's own style guide is rather "idiosyncratic"—or, at least, idiosyncretic—and so am I. I am not aware of any policy, guideline, or even essay that advises against (or elaborates on) including certain information in citations, either, especially not in a way that differentiates between citation types. The closest I find is brief help page commentary about certain data not being required or necessary, or being superfluous when well-known, all of which seems either permissive or post-hoc to me.
Consequently, I have been effectively treating the CS1 help page and template documentation as a de facto extension of the Manual of Style, at least until something like Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Citations is created; and have been following simple guidelines of my own, such as "fill the citation as extensively as you can per the guidelines to provide the most informative citation". I take it you advise against that. Is there any reason why beyond style guide conventions? This is increasingly becoming a more general discussion, so feel free to move this to either of our user talk pages if you want.
On access levels, I understand the parameter constraints and have used all the |*-access= parameters before multiple times. My point was, specifically, that open is not a valid parameter value for any of them, so consequently there is no way to differentiate between gratis (green padlock) and libre (orange padlock) access. Presently, CS1 templates only provide a generalized not-closed-access option; the only way to indicate whether a citation is sourcing a free-of-charge copy like author's copies (gratis) or a free-licensed (libre) work is through the external padlock template.
I ask these questions not to dispute the changes (your changes will be published), but to better understand your perspective as one of the editors most experienced and familiar with these matters. I have been largely formatting citations the way I have as a result of my own unchecked interpretations of the guidelines and documentation pages; thus, checking these interpretations with experts who seem to edit contrary to them may help me improve my editing both here and more generally. I would rather not be leaving citations in a very idiosyncratic (and idiosyncretic) style around the project that other editors will just reformat for that reason. In the mainspace, my citations have almost always stuck and almost always remained unchanged, but that may not say much. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rezgui, Amira; Crowston, Kevin (22 August 2018). "Stigmergic Coordination in Wikipedia" (PDF). Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Open Collaboration. 14th International Symposium on Open Collaboration (OpenSym '18). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Article No. 19. doi:10.1145/3233391.3233543. ISBN 978-1-4503-5936-8. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 September 2018. Retrieved 30 September 2018. {{cite conference}}: External link in |conference= (help); Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) Free access icon

I really want to help push to completion

I hope my formatting here isn't too disruptive since I'm on mobile currently and it's difficult to see what I'm doing. I've been absent for the past few critical days due to real life issues (detailed on my user page) and it looks like we're really having trouble although again it's hard to read anything with this mobile format (at least I get pictures now). I'm a bit hamstrung by lack of time and being on mobile but I really really want to help with whatever is needed now that I've finished TR. Is there anything I can do? I don't want to watch helplessly while everyone struggles. ♥Acorimori♦ 22:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The publication deadline is literally about an hour away, Acorri, and the go-ahead for publication has already been given by Bri (unless they revoke that), so I don't think there is anything left to do nor any time even if so. Moreover, since the publication signal has been sent, editing at this time is rather risky because it may catastrophically disrupt the publication process if it is initiated and conflicts with an edit.
You have already significantly contributed to ensuring some semblance of an issue is publishable this month; thank you for that. As for what still needs to be done, I think everything has now either been finalized or postponed. Right now, the only thing left to do is determine whether to even publish this month and, if so, to do so. And if we do so, all any of us can do is wait for the publication manager to publish. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Alright, thank you then. I'm really crossing my fingers on this. I felt really bad for being absent during this crunch even though it was due to circumstances outside my control. ♥Acorimori♦ 00:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Returned

Well, I have returned. What can I do around here? I'd volunteer to be editor-in-chief but I have zero idea what that entails. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Info on EIC responsibilities and other job options can be found here: wp:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Coordination. Welcome back! — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 20:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Traffic Report

Alright I've got it just about done. Since this is my first time doing this column, can someone check my work? The main things I want feedback on:

  • Did I do the title and blurb right? Are they up to standard?
  • I removed numbers from the introductions and tables that referenced entries #11-#25 which obviously aren't included in this version. Should I be doing that? Did I do it cleanly enough? I didn't want to outright censor anything.
  • What should I be doing for the pictures? Should I continue using the graphs (I assume they're graphs, I'd have to set aside time on a computer that doesn't have images blocked to be sure) or search Wikimedia for images that match the general theme?

Obviously I'd greatly appreciate any other feedback as well. Thanks! ♥Acorimori♦ 20:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The most recent TR took out the graphs. (see WP:WPS) Other than that it looks fine to me but since I'm not the EiC I'm probably not the most discerning eye.  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 12:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not a member of the Signpost team and have only copy-edited it for the last few or so issues, but it all seems fine to me. During my copy-edit review of the article (feel free to check the changes to see if they are acceptable), I did not come across any major problems, especially nothing that was significantly different from prior traffic reports. The closest to that would be the extra vertical bar in the first table causing formatting issues, which I removed. I do not recall the bar graphs being included in the prior reports I have edited, but I have no issue with their inclusion.
Overall, consider my feedback positive and without complaint. Thank you for contributing to The Signpost, especially this month. Now, let's just hope there is enough to publish. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC); edited to update diff at 18:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung email

Apologies in advance for the wall of text.

I received an email from the ex-editor-in-chief of this publication, Kudpung. Because I received it as an email rather than a talk page post, I will not copy-paste it or provide a summary of the full contents, but some of its contents are of immediate relevance to the Signpost. Specifically, Kudpung considers the best course of action to "postpone it indefinitely", saying it should be either be published at a high quality or not at all, at the risk of damage to its reputation. He also took issue with the amount of "filler" the publication has.

In the short term I think we should go ahead with publication as this was sort of an 11th-hour thing and the work's already been put in. In the longer term, I think we should give this stuff some thought. Closing down the Signpost may be a bit extreme, but the comments on "filler" sections bring up a good point. Maybe it's for the best that the From the Archives section was delayed this issue. I keep coming back to this post by Bri which looked at page views, and it did show that what readers care about the most are sections like NaN, ItM, AR, DR, and TeR. (That said, the Humor section is still my favorite.)

At the end of the day, the EnWP community continues to look to us for news, and we would be doing a disservice to just stop only because of 1 email (even if the email is from the most recent EiC). I am amazed that we are still pulling this together and would like to congratulate everyone on another issue (almost) in the books, but I will definitely think about this more in the coming days. I'd like to hear all of your thoughts as well if you have any. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to have this conversation also. Quality is definitely a concern, but we are also based on timely content, so I think an arbitrarily long interval between issues would make a lot of early work throw-away which just becomes frustrating for the contributors. Based on my research as noted, and on community feedback, I think the News and notes section is the most important to get right and not to be afraid to have somewhat of a strong editorial feel about. Dry recitations of anything, but especially technical updates, do not make for engaging content for readers. Nor do they excite current or future contributors. My final input for now is we need to do something to engage and excite people who contribute to the issue. My own contributions will be severely curtailed due to real-world stuff; I do wish I could do more, but I could barely make it here over the weekend to help get this issue out. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Real world obligations should always come first.  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
So long as I am posting here, Pythoncoder, I can assure you that teal deers will find more umbrage under my walls than yours. Consequently, you can just point to me as proof of your parsimony if you are ever concerned. That said, it is good to learn that Kudpung is still lurking around these parts. I have been been pessimistic about The Signpost's survival since I first began editing after Kudpung's knelling summoned me. I even half-joked about Barbara's crossword this month being left with the ultimate cliffhanger. The sentiment of this section is why it was only half.
Frankly, I have been tempted to argue and appeal in the Signpost talk pages that we should abandon the Editor-in-Chief position altogether and treat this paper in the same leaderless collaborative way that us volunteers treat the project more generally—or, to use the spicy new word of this month, stigmergically. My main reason for not yet doing so has been due to a lack of clearly on-topic opportunity. I have no issue with prior Editors-in-Chief; I just think we can do without one, especially when their absence causes the paper to have an existential crisis, as if we are unable to function without someone above us. If we are dealing with an editor shortage and not just a chief one, however, then existential concerns are due—and we have definitely been lacking in contributions. That is the source of my pessimism and until it is resolved, that really may have been a death knell after all.
I will continue contributing so long as there is a Signpost accepting them. If all else fails, I can always join our chief competitor, TheWikiWizard. Unlike here, it still has an Editor-in-Chief. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC); edited at 22:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Addendum: Regarding postponing publication indefinitely, I have no opposition to it—if we decide to not publish this month, I won't complain. It is a sad loss of an issue, but I suspect this month's "Recent research" will at least be published at Research:Newsletter by Tbayer (albeit this time it will not be a republication of ours). If the staff supports suspending publication indefinitely, then so be it. That will require a revocation of the publication signal, however, which I suspect will still be treated as valid unless it is. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I strongly support publication as is.  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Restore some archived content?

Should at least the last section, "Kudpung email", be restored from the archive to here, since it seems discussion was still ongoing and it was beginning to turn toward more general talk of how to change The Signpost? Or should a new section be started here?

Also, Headbomb, I guess if you want to continue the discussion we were having at "Recent research", you can respond on one of our user talk pages. I am still very interested in your input if you are willing to provide it, though I understand if you are busy.

More generally, since it seems that discussions sometimes continue after publication, might it be better to just let the archive bot handle inactive ones? Or is a postpublication clean slate important for some reason? —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, I'm an inflexible robot, dutifully performing my task. The publishing instructions say to archive the talk, which is what I did. The focus of the discussion negated Kudpung's preference that we stop publishing. As we have published anyway, it seemed a moot point. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Chris troutman, and for your publication work more generally. I was unaware that such archival was part of the publishing instructions. If I or anyone else wishes to continue discussing it, I suppose we can in a new section here or (probably better) at the general talk page. I think conversation about where to go from here with The Signpost is important to have (again), since the current trajectory is rather obvious; however, talk of whether to publish is indeed rather anachronistic at this point. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The irony...  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 16:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Help

I went to the Newsroom page to begin the archives article and it is not 'right'. I would fix it but I don't know how. The same for the missing Essay section. Thanks, Barbara ✐  ✉ 18:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Strickland incident

I noticed that the discussion at the "Suggestions" page regarding the Strickland incident has been archived by the archive bot; I suspect this is because of GreenMeansGo's usage of {{done}}, which signals to the bot to archive on that page. I don't know if anyone wants to bring that discussion back out of the archive, but if not (and regardless), any further discussion about those plans can be had here. Courtesy pings for the other discussion participants: Bri, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, PrimeHunter, Alanscottwalker, and czar. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

As a note, other relevant discussion can be found here (permanent link). —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, {{done}} only displays the tick mark image and the bolded text, (unless you're on a multilingual project, in which case it displays whatever "done" your language settings tell it to). I don't think it has any affect on the behavior of the archive bot. GMGtalk 17:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Generally, that is the case; however, according to the collapsed "Settings" section in the archive box at the top of the page, "[d]iscussions are archived by Cluebot III when older than 60 days, or if marked with {{done}}". Moreover, Cluebot's template instructions in the wikitext include the following:
|archivenow=<nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{resolved|,{{Resolved|,{{done}},{{Done}}, {{tick}}</nowiki>
Unless I am misunderstanding something (and I might be, since I am not very familiar with such functionality), that appears to be why the section was archived. It also explains why older sections above it were not. In any case, if anything from that prior section still needs further discussion, it can be continued here. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC); slightly edited last at 18:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm? Well I'll be damned. Today I learned. I didn't even know that was an option in the archive settings. GMGtalk 19:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
If it is any consolation, I learned about that functionality here, too, after seeing it in the template code on some of The Signpost's pages. It was a surprise for me and I wonder how many Wikipedians are aware of such functionality. It seems rarely used. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Stigmergic slaves to The Signpost

Conversation restarted... Quality is definitely a concern, but we are also based on timely content, so I think an arbitrarily long interval between issues would make a lot of early work throw-away which just becomes frustrating for the contributors. Based on my research as noted, and on community feedback, I think the News and notes section is the most important to get right and not to be afraid to have somewhat of a strong editorial feel about. Dry recitations of anything, but especially technical updates, do not make for engaging content for readers. Nor do they excite current or future contributors. My final input for now is we need to do something to engage and excite people who contribute to the issue. My own contributions will be severely curtailed due to real-world stuff; I do wish I could do more, but I could barely make it here over the weekend to help get this issue out. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

News and notes should not be a forum for veiled attacks at volunteers - whether I am involved or not as a former Signpost editor. My style of journalism may have been controversial in the eyes of some, but it got The Signpost back on its feet, increased its circulation, and I never slighted any Wikipedia volunteers. Character assassination is fine when aimed at those who enjoy gross salaries in the WMF and still get things very wrong, but even the most unruly of content contributors, admins, and former arbitrators are generally doing something constructive with their article and maintenance edits. We'd be better off without it than it becoming basically a technology and research report and no compelling reading. Wikipedia may be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but The Signpost is not an encyclopedia and it needs to rise above the internal strife among the active users and be of even better quality than the web site whose official organ it is. I'm very disappointed with this month's thin publication which seems to be all at sea with no one at the helm.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Character assassination is never okay. Addendum: we didn't always get this right when I was the editor. Please don't repeat those mistakes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Interesting that the usual crowd who howls over BLP in the Signpost isn't complaining that the editor has outright declared that "character assassination is fine". Gamaliel (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I honestly don't understand Kudpung's complaint. My concern is that if we don't publish often enough we'll lose readership. Much of our content loses value over time. We are really boxed-in by the limited help we can get from volunteers. The Signpost fosters community discussion and I doubt the WMF wants that because not only would they not throw some money our way, they don't seem to want to hear what the editors prefer to do. I think, though, we can all see that community discussion is an important element to the governance of our adhocracy. I support Bri's leadership in this regard. I don't find it praiseworthy for editors who freely choose not to participate think that the entire project should be shut down without them. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
We saw the vast sea of faces eager to push and shove to wade through the stagnant waters for places on the editorial board at the time I wrote my Death Knell piece and stepped into the breach in the planking for a declared temporary stint. Who are all these editors who freely choose not to participate and think that the entire project should be shut down without them? Those who do the least or even nothing at all, are always very ready to stand and jeer from the sidelines though - it's a Wikipedia tradition. It doesn't' exactly encourage any synergy.
That a decent volume of The Signpost fosters community discussion, I do not doubt, but if there is no discussable content to discuss, that important community discussion won't be discussed. But the only discussion now seems to be to discuss and deride those who made it work. It was great working with with Bri, and together these past months we'd made it work and certainly created some cause for discussion. I would hesitate to say with Bri and me being absent - and that is absolutely as much his prerogative as mine - that this latest issue was released with any leadership. A last-minute decision to publish perhaps, but let's avoid any mixaphors. It will be interesting to see who provides the discussable content and launches the second October issue from its dry dock with enough ballast to prevent it capsizing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I have always found it humourous(surprise!) to read the lengthy critiques in the comment space after each article. Let's just pretend for a moment that the critique-ers put in the same about of time contributing content to an article in the Signpost. We already know what topics get our readers riled up-just begin to talk about administrators and the responses quickly become longer than the actual article. We almost need a regular monthly column just to talk about administrators. People like the Signpost for all different reasons. People contribute to the Signpost for all different reasons. Not all articles have the same readership. I measure the success of the Signpost with an entirely different metric. Look at the pageviews! I simply just like having people read what I write. I find each and every article a pleasure to read. Thank you Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. I appreciate what you have done to improve the Signpost. I learned so much from you. You have a background that few have and raised the bar on quality. And on a personal level, I deeply appreciate your critique of the circumstances surrounding my recent two blocks. I read all the drafts....I felt like someone finally understood what has happened to me. And Bri! You have given so much time and energy to make things work...and you thought my squirrel article was funny. Chris Troutman, thanks for stepping in to help make publication happen. I miss Pittsburgh, you, and all the other editors I met at edit-a-thons there. I guess what I am saying, we might be a little too intense. If there is a mistake in an article, then readers point it out a lot of the time. I don't see that as a major issue. I wish I could do more to help out. I will continue to contribute and will commit to the humour article as long as possible. I think all you who have contributed are amazing and can't thank you enough for the personal satisfaction I get from working with all of you. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 18:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Not to get bogged down, but this 'character assassination is fine' bit. What's up with that? Richard Nevell (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

In my experience, getting caught up in negativity and just talking about how bad everything is just takes time away from actually fixing it. If this conversation was full of ideas to get more people involved or improve our quality then that would be great but all I see is complaining that those things aren't just happening. I get how frustrating it is to try to fix these problems constantly and I know I'm new on the team so I just haven't experienced this particular problem as much but pointlessly negative discussions aren't helping. I'm with Barbara in feeling like working on the Signpost is its own reward, and also that you are all awesome and I've learned a lot from you. I think we should be trying to face forward, not back. (Sorry if this is poorly written, I'm stuck on mobile and also exhausted at the end of my work day) ♥Acorimori♦ 02:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Getting caught up with it and talking about it is necessary. It's how one learns from mistakes, can find fixes, and aim for quality in the future. At least that's what I taught my college students for nearly 40 years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
In which case Kudpung could you explain your view on character assassination? Richard Nevell (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
What's your real problem Nevell? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Kudpung: was it a rhetorical turn of phrase or is there some other explanation? Richard Nevell (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Richard Nevell, if you are a native British English speaker, you will recognise the literary device. That said, the team here would probably appreciate this talk page being used strictly for their discussions regarding the editorial work involved in publishing The Signpost. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: As a former EIC of The Signpost your opinion carries more weight than most, so it's reasonable think a bit about your idiosyncratic stances. I am glad to hear it wasn't meant sincerely, but perhaps rather than using rhetorical turns to express yourself - which may come across as promoting personal attacks as long as the target is employed by the WMF - I would recommend putting your point clearly and precisely. In any case, good luck to The Signpost's writers for the next issue. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Richard Nevell. Gone, but not forgotten, as former E-in-C my opinions count for nothing now I am no longer at the helm. The editorial team, if there are any makings of such a cohesive group, will do what they want. If you have concerns about The Signpost, consider providing better journalism or organisation yourself, and aim your 'recommendations' where they will be effective. For the rest, I will respond on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment

  • Since your timeline starts in 2018, has anyone with administrator access managed to track down the even earlier version from 2014, which was deleted due to copyright infringement? It would be great to have information about this beyond hearsay.
I do agree with your points about getting Wikipedia wrong, and for anyone who'd like to check I made a check of physics, chemistry and medicine laureates for the last 10 years with links to their earliest Wikipedia histories here.
But if you look at the earliest versions of those biographies, a number of them were in much worse shape than the May 2018 Strickland lemma that was deleted. I think that is an important point here: The standards have changed between the early days and now. That bias means that those who wrote the first bios of (mostly male) scientists back then face far lower hurdles then those who, whether as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red or independently, work on including more biographies of women.
That doesn't mean we should relax our standards anew, but I think it should mean we look very closely at the existing standards. And particularly, when it comes to academics, the problem of having reliable external sources is one we ought to address. Why, for instance, is the website of an established university not considered a reliable source for basic facts from exactly that university, such as who is a full professor, and who is an associate professor? The university website is less likely to get that wrong than a newspaper article, I would think. Similar with fellowships or officerships of a scientific society – why are the society's web pages not considered a reliable source for that? These instances seem to take the requirement for independent sources too far, and in the process make it more difficulties for those addressing the gender gap to create new biographies (even of persons notable according to our own criteria). Markus Pössel (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC) copied from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed Eddie891 Talk Work 12:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
In case GreenMeansGo has not seen this comment, this ping should ensure that. Markus Pössel, I have seen similar sentiments expressed before, especially recently due to this Strickland incident. If you are interested, you can submit a piece about your opinions in this regard, even as an appeal of sorts to change the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) if you think they should be. Sure, you can just start a talk page discussion there, and I notice that you have (permanent link), but a piece in The Signpost may help publicize your position and bring further attention to the matter. That may be especially worthwhile if you expect the aforementioned discussion to persist into November, particularly if you intend to initiate an RfC about it in November. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping and the link! I'll be glad to submit an opinion piece; might that not be seen as canvassing, though? I would like to make people aware of my proposal, but I haven't participated in policy discussions much, and want to be sure to do things right. Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Markus Pössel (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Activities considered canvassing are those that reach out to an audience that you presuppose is aligned with your point of view, as opposed to the community-at-large point of view. Publishing an op-ed in The Signpost is reaching out to the community-at-large by definition, so you're OK wrt canvassing. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply! It would be campaigning though, not? "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." as per WP:CAN? Or are signposts op-ed OK in that respect? (Sorry for continuing to ask questions, just trying to make sure.) Markus Pössel (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I guess the best response is that after all WP:CAN is a guideline to which exceptions may apply. A Signpost op-ed is certainly one of those exceptions, standing with common practice to voice one's opinions on one's own talkpage, Jimbo's talkpage, a user essay, and so on. I think if WP:CAN were followed to the letter, and opinions could not be expressed on-wiki, it would really not benefit the user community. At the same time, I'd rather not see op-eds that explicitly say "go to this RfC and vote this way"; rather, a more elevated discussion of consideration of policy and practices, abstracted from one particular venue. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
What follows is a longer, more general, and likely superfluous explanation, Markus Pössel. A summary is below. I decided to not reply with only the summary because it seems that your concerns are about avoiding impropriety in policy discussions more generally, so a more general explanation that contextualizes canvassing may best address those concerns.
My understanding of canvassing is that it is a behavior defined by distorting the consensus-building process to one's favor through specific and targeted attempts at notifying those sympathetic to one's positions. This is why canvassing is explained with examples such as creating sockpuppets, soliciting sympathizers, soliciting based on stated affiliations, and gathering support through off-Wiki channels. A related activity is forum shopping, which is the process of repeatedly initiating discussions in different areas of the project with the intent of achieving a more favorable outcome. All of these are types of tendentious editing. What unite all these behaviors are the disregard for community norms, particularly about building consensus, and methods of gaming the system in the pursuit of one's own beliefs and interests. It is not simply the pursuit of one's own beliefs and interests, which can manifest in advocacy and conflict-of-interest editing, since both of those can still, in principle, occur within community norms and without gaming the system or abusing the process. It is thus the behavior of distorting consensus-building through specific and targeted solicitation itself that characterizes canvassing.
Although a Signpost piece can, in principle, be part of a larger pattern of tendentious editing, a prior pattern of tendentious editing is necessary to contextualize the piece as such. Absent that, I do not see how a Signpost piece advocating a particular position or change within the policies and guidelines qualifies as any of the problematic behavior above. Such a piece better resembles an appeal to Jimbo, or a post at the village pump, or one of the many essays that exist. All the aforementioned likewise can be part of a larger tendentious pattern, but only if there is such a pattern.
In any case, none of those are examples of canvassing since they are general appeals to the community and not targeted notifications of specific users or groups. You are not selecting who receives the appeal, nor is the selection process favorable to your position, nor is your "non-neutral" appeal sent only to users who are likely to support your position (which is what the "campaigning" part of canvassing is about). To illustrate this, consider how these terms are used in politics more generally (from where they originate): canvassing is a practice in political campaigns wherein one knocks on doors and targets people based on their sympathies, which is different from writing a sympathetic piece in a newspaper or magazine. In the context of wikipolitics, publishing in The Signpost is the latter; soliciting support from Wikipedian scientists and academics is the former.
Ultimately, if you still feel uncomfortable about it, you can seek further input at WT:CANVAS, the village pump, the Teahouse, or wherever else you think is best.
(TL;DR) "Campaigning" is about targeted solicitation. "Canvassing" in Wikipedia derives from canvassing as a concept in politics more generally; likewise with campaigning. What characterizes canvassing and campaigning is the targeted selection of potential sympathizers in support of a position or cause. Publishing a sympathetic piece in a newspaper or magazine (which The Signpost is) does not qualify as that for the same reason why, in politics, opinion pieces in newspapers are not considered to be canvassing: the appeal is general and does not select who receives the appeal. If you still feel unsure, though, feel free to ask for clarification in the places mentioned above. For all I know, I am entirely wrong about all this and missing something important. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Bri for the information, and Nøkkenbuer for the detailed explanation – both were very helpful to me! Markus Pössel (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
...and I have now submitted User:Markus_Pössel/ProposalStricklandCase as an opinion piece, as per your advice. Thanks again! Markus Pössel (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the submission, Markus Pössel! I have read it in full and find it to be a specific and clear explanation of your position. To me, at least, I do not read it as at all problematic with respect to the related discussion you initiated about it, either. Nonetheless, my opinion is my own alone and The Signpost is not, so I am pinging Bri to ensure it is seen. What do you think, Bri? In the mean time, feel free to continue changing and adding to it at your discretion, even (and especially) if it is included in the next issue. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the positive feedback! Markus Pössel (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Much of this is, and will continue to be under discussion by the wider community. See for example Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability is geared towards the white male perspective. As of yet, how we frame and define the issue, and what, if anything, we decide to do about it, is still very much up in the air.
I have added a footnote to that detailed list to the article as it breaks it down very neatly. Nice job. GMGtalk 17:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the footnote! You might want to add that my list only covers the last 10 years, though. Markus Pössel (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Dual op-ed?

I think Markus' piece might fit well as a dual op-ed with GMG's. They express rather different take-aways from the incident, one basically saying that the biographic article mechanisms worked fine as-is, the other calling parts into question. So: a point-counterpoint format. What do other Newsroom contributors think? - ☆ Bri (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I see no problem with this.  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
This would make a lot of sense, as would a short editorial piece giving the Signpost’s own POV, or own comments. A triplet rather than a pair, or maybe a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. A lot of ways to approach this. Qwirkle (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I've prepared Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed as discussed. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Except without a synthesis. Maybe I'll wax a little more poetic in the introductory blurb later. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, cool! Thanks for including the text in the op-ed! Markus Pössel (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I think there is so much valuable information the above discussion that a future editorial can be created for the next issue. Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The pieces are illuminating viewpoints on English Wikipedia's process of article creation. They don't quite seem like a pair of point-counterpoint op-eds, though, as I don't think one is countering the other. They are examining different aspects of how articles are written with a sufficient level of sourcing to meet English Wikipedia's standards. Perhaps the introduction can just say something like This month's Op-ed presents two different views about the creation of a biography on Donna Strickland, the 2018 recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics. isaacl (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Triple op-ed

We have another incoming contribution on Strickland from one of the newsroom folks, Chris troutman. I've had a quick look at it offline, and think it would be appropriate. It seems to make sense to include it in Op-ed column alongside the other two.

As far as what Isaac says above, maybe calling it "count-counterpoint" isn't so appropriate anymore, if it was in the first place. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Controversies involving Wikipedians

After last issue's discussion, I thought I'd poll the team for how we ought to be handling controversies involving individuals. Is it fair to report on, e.g. administrator behavior that's at noticeboards? Something crossed my radar. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Whether I'm still part of the Signpost or not, I've already said this several times (whether I am the target of scandal mongering journalism or not): the apathy to create content for the magazine should not be an excuse to turn the publication into a society tittle-tattle rag. And if its new team is nevertheless determined to turn it into a Tratschlappen anyway, why not do a whole page of reports of every single dispute from every noticeboard and talk page? Let The Signpost become the new Wikipediocracy. Why not? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that the above is not what the Signpost is, nor is it what we want it to be.  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 12:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Then people should practice what they preach. That said, I have noticed at least three important issues and developments around the movement that are each worthy of a full column for the next issue. Has no one else? (rhetorical question). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I have a bit of a bold suggestion: let the readers decide. Rather than have those in the newsroom worry and wonder about it, ask the community to see what they prefer to read and what they prefer their magazine to cover. If the readers generally prefer reports about specific users dropped altogether, then so be it; if they just want coverage of events pertaining to stewards, arbitrators, and maybe administrators, then we can do that; if there is clear and overwhelming support for a new gossip column that also includes recapitulations of the juciest threads in the drama boards (I sure hope not), then, well, at least we know where the community stands.
My point is that we aren't writing (just) for ourselves, and this magazine isn't (just) for us, so there is no need in keeping this among us. Community consensus is more determinative and in-line with the wiki way than anything decided here, anyway. Simply pose the question in a section of one of the pieces, or even begin a new "Community feedback" feature (or revive "Community view" or "Forum") and ask it there, and we will hopefully have a clear answer by December.
As for this issue, however, I'm not sure. I'm not categorically opposed to it, but I prefer judging it on a case-by-case basis. Without the details, I personally am disinclined to judge. If the community is asked, however, a justification can be provided for either decision: we omitted such content this issue due to concerns expressed in the previous one, or we included such content anyway and readers can view them as examples of the content we mean. Either can work; both can also backfire. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Issue 11 (late October)

I will have limited time to contribute to issue 11. Hopefully some other contributors can finish copyediting and creating some of the missing sections. Again, would like to stick to the planned publication schedule. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I intend to be available to copy-edit this issue, Bri, including the up to three new pieces that are apparently still under construction for it. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Issue theme/meme/inside joke

Issue 10's running gag maybe was "stigmergic" (wow, not even in my spell checker). We could keep going with something new in Issue 11? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure how to keep it alive in any conspicuous way, though the first suggestion that came to my mind is for us to just sneak in the term at least once every issue somewhere among the pieces. If so, I know where to put it this issue. Really, though, such nefarious cabalism should not be done so transparently. I duly await this section being wikilinked from the archives if and probably when readers catch on or otherwise out our plans in the comments, whatever those plans become. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Addendum: Upon rereading the section, I realize that you do not mean continuing mention of the spicy stigmergy. In that case, it seems that this issue's theme is already largely about Strickland, at least in terms of content. Other than some cringeworthy puns, I've got nothing. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

From the editor or editors

If anybody wants to take a turn writing "From the editors", please drop a note here. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps add all the (major) contributors this issue to the feature's byline? That might be especially appropriate if everyone adds their comments to the feature. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"Opinion"

FYI
 – This section was refactored down at 23:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC).

I have some concerns about the "Opinion" piece, which hopefully Barbara can dispel. I am bringing this here rather than her user talk page since this pertains to The Signpost and a more general discussion may be due.

Specifically, my primary concern is that Wikipediocracy's copyright policy and licensing are unclear but appear to be permissive, at least insofar as its terms of service assign copyright to post authors along with the usual licensing legalese standard for such documents. The website's footer also contains the standard "Copyright © 2018 Wikipediocracy - All Rights Reserved by Authors".

Regardless, although Barbara is the author of the original blog post, is it a copyright concern to be publishing an updated but otherwise near-identical variant here? Additionally and relatedly, should a link to the original blog post be included in the piece? I am not opposed to the piece, but I don't want to leave these potential problems and concerns undiscussed either. So long as copyright is not a concern, and there is agreement on whether to include a link to the original blog post, I am fine with the piece. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC); edited at 06:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: Actually, come to think of it, even if this technically counts as unlicensed content, doesn't the fact that Barbara herself republished it here under CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL by virtue of publishing the edit mean it (or that version, at least) is now irrevocably relicensed as such by the sole copyright owner? Therefore, there is no copyright concern? I assume so, but I might as well leave this up to discuss, anyway, since even just confirming the obvious here is worthwhile for the record. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

No one needs to stress, I'll just rewrite it. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 18:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
So long as this is not a copyright concern, Barbara, I have no issue with the piece as it presently is. Like my addendum noted, the fact that you are the sole copyright owner and you republished the content here may be sufficient for that to qualify as you providing permission and effectively donating the copyrighted material. Had that occurred to me prior to my publishing the original post, I would have probably not done so. I do not regularly deal with copyright matters, however, and it being legally relevant instills extra caution. That is why I am hesitant to dismiss this as resolved.
What do you think, Bri? Is there no issue here? Or shall we summon someone else more familiar with copyright issues? What about linking to the original blogpost in the piece? —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
On Wikipedia we generally require authors to keep track of copyright on their contribs. I think we should follow that and allow Barbara to correct the issue if she thinks that she relinquished copyright on her original text. I'm not a contract or copyright specialist and wouldn't feel comfortable making that determination for her. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I've (cheerfully) re-written my piece but it is probably too long. If someone could go into the article and edit for brevity, copyrights will probably not be an issue. Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Frankly, I regret initiating this discussion, given the fact that the copyright concerns appear to be undue. At least now I know what people mean by copyright paranoia being disruptive. In any case, since it appears that the copyright concerns may be undue, I am fine with the original piece. I am also fine with the current piece, though I apologize for stimulating its creation to resolve potentially undue copyright concerns.
If there are any legitimate concerns about copyright and we are not using the original piece for that reason, however, then we probably should treat this as any other copyright problem and delete those revisions. If not, then that is unnecessary. Given my commentary has already potentially been disruptive enough to otherwise unproblematic work, I will refrain from commenting on this matter any further and support whatever decision is made. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no problem from my perspective and the rewrite was 'fun'. Anyone can also edit the piece if you feel like it. I was concerned a little bit since my observance of copyrights has been criticized on ANI and so now I feel bit more at ease. I apppreciate the discussion and don't think it is disrupting at all. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 00:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, 'fun'. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the original question, although it's moot now: if an author hasn't assigned copyright rights to someone else, then the author retains the right to make copies. (In theory an author can recreate the exact same text without copying it, but obviously that would be implausible for a text of any significant length.) If the terms of use of the other site doesn't include an explicit assignment of rights, there shouldn't be an issue. Publication on this web site provides a license to copy the contents from here, but plays no role in the right to copy contents from another site. (And re-writing can be good as it provides a chance to revisit and improve the original text :) isaacl (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
About the piece itself, I suggest it be modified slightly to emphasize the new challenge of attributing information being narrated by a device, something that has become more widespread with the increasing popularity of assistants with a voice interface, rather than when commercialization arrived. As just one example, people have been selling compilations of Wikipedia pages related to one topic as self-published books for some time now. Some of them may provide attribution, some apparently do not (from what others have said; I haven't personally looked into it). isaacl (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, isaacl, and for confirming what I suspected. Regarding the slight modification, I am pinging Barbara since it is her work. She can even expand it further if she wants; it's not like it will be anywhere near the longest piece this month. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Given how much content is available this month, it seems that a revival of some irregular features will be necessary. I have been considering how to best organize all this and the following is what I propose:

The "Traffic report" (perhaps Acorri is interested?) and "Featured content" (any takers?) can also be included this issue. Although I understand that publication is less than four days away, I think we can achieve including all of the above. I, at least, am prepared to copy-edit it all, though anyone else willing to help is of course welcome. Frankly, even if the new issue needs to be delayed until 30 October, I think ensuring a packed issue with many features is worth doing so.

What does everyone think? Pinging Bri, Chris Troutman, and Evad37. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC); edited at 17:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to what you suggest, but I think this decision lies with Bri. I'm concerned that the Traffic Report hasn't been started yet, as that's a very timely report and (I thought) one of the more read pieces we publish. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Regardless, your input is important; thank you for providing it (and the third part of this issue's "Op-ed"!). It seems that, despite the increased interest in writing for The Signpost this issue due to recent events (both occurred and upcoming), there remains insufficient contributors to sustain publication of the more regular features. At this rate, the notion of a "regular feature" will disappear and the magazine will just publish whatever is available at the end of the month. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not really in charge ... if two people think it's a good idea, let's go with it. Sorry I've been absent so much this interval; it's RL calling. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, I was proceeding with the changes, but ran into what I expected, Bri and Chris Troutman: I have moved "Opinion" to "In focus", but now cannot move "Special report" to "Opinion" or proceed with moving the special report submission over what will be the newly created redirect. If we are going to proceed with this, then it will need to be finished by someone who has the necessary privileges, such as an admin. Alternatively, I can submit technical move requests, but this is more complex a case than is usually brought there. Sorry about the mess. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh right, Troutman has extendedmover, so he can do so when he's available. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I have the privs too, will try to do it momentarily. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, the eyes tend to glaze over a bit when seeing such a robust list of bits. By the way, who has the script for importing the blog installed? I don't and, frankly, it is somewhat unclear to me how to install it; otherwise, I would do it myself. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The page moves should be done now. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Traffic Report should be ready for copyedit. One section didn't have a clever header in the original. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

One more change required - as Kudpung has pointed out, our current item in the Essay slot does not fit the content guidance and needs a new title. We're getting kind of full of op-eds and opinion, though, so I'm not sure what to do with it. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

How is it not? Yes, it is opinionated; essays in prior issues also have been to varying degrees, and Wikipedia essays are explicitly defined as opinion pieces. That's the whole point of essays: spaces for editors to express their opinions and advice related to aiding and understanding the project. That is precisely what the "Strickland incident" does, specifically regarding the Strickland incident and related matters.
The sparse content guidance on essays is basically just stating that essays exist, are sometimes cited in discussions, and have varying support within the community. That's it and that all applies to the "Strickland incident" essay since it was created. The only statement of purpose for the entire feature therein is that it is meant to draw attention to the essayist(s) and their work, which is precisely why including the essay is so important. It lets his side be told. Given the main theme this issue, Bradv's essay fits right in.
I agree that this issue is replete opinion pieces. There was a lot of contributors willing to provide it and, given the Strickland incident, I think it is due. We can just not publish the essay, but then we are omitting the voice of the most central editor to the entire Strickland event, a voice I seriously doubt will be published anywhere else. Alternatively, it can be published in some new feature, which I also support. I have no clue what its name would be, though. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC); slightly edited at 17:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • For purposes of The Signpost classifications, 'Essay' is a regular column I introduced during my tenure where the magazine would reprint a particularly interesting existing user or Wikipedia essay. I'm absolutely not otherwise characterising on this article but it needs to be given another name tag. I would suggest simply 'Opinion' and we would then have 2 opinion pieces - which is just fine, but if that creates a clash with the script, then please think of something else. I don't know how to change it in the page template. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    I am frankly fine with whatever at this point, including as you said. I trust the judgements of all involved here and have sunk enough time already. Considering the postponed "Essay" from before, enough content is available to simply run two "Opinion" pieces and reschedule the original "Essay", which is already prepared. If necessary, Bradv's piece can even be named a "Bonus" feature that is included in this issue due to the special circumstances of the main theme being about Strickland.
    As noted below, there is also some talk of including something somewhere about the Hasive case, unless the team intends to not mention it at all in favor of publishing a fuller report next issue (at the risk of it being stale by then). Additionally, there is this, which might be a "Forum" feature and which I wrote up at Bri's suggestion after Bri's liking my idea of taking this whole matter of what to report to the readers. Given my schedule, I suspect I will not be available for much of today, and so these decisions will need to be made without me unless they are made within the next few hours.
    Lastly, I apologize to the team for my low and slow contributions this month. I was not available as much as I wanted and there was more content than I anticipated, so even the dozens of hours I have already invested this month have been insufficient. I do not intend to repeat that deficit next issue. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC); edited at 02:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Bengali Wikipedia editor scandal

WBG now has a nearly completed draft about the Bengali Wikipedia editor scandal, the one I mentioned can be published as a "Community view" piece above; for the record, I was informed at my talk page (permanent link). What do you think of the draft and including it in this issue, Bri and Chris Troutman?

Both WBG and I understand that it is not complete just yet, and needs some copy-editing and restructuring (the content can be collapsed and condensed into more paragraphic prose), both of which I can do; however, as the one who first suggested the piece and invited WBG to write it (permanent link), I support including it. This is not my decision, though, and understanding what you two (and anyone else reading this) think of this is important. Particularly, since both of you are far more experienced and familiar with The Signpost, I want to know if a report of this type and content is acceptable.

I will not be available for many hours, but will respond as soon as I am. In the meantime, I hope consideration is given to this piece. And yes, I do still intend to copy-edit the rest of the issue. The totality of my time on Wikipedia will be dedicated to doing so until publication. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I support including it, but it's far from ready. Most of that document could be boiled down to two paragraphs explaining that the user in question took money from the Government of Bangladesh to put copyvio stuff on bn-wiki. I'm concerned at the bottom where there are statements that WikiData and Commons are ignoring WMF Terms of Use. We need some real proof or we need clarification that admins at those projects aren't concerned about disclosure of paid editing. If we're reporting all those assertions as fact, I recommend someone perform some fact-checking before we run with it. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
One of the concerns I had while reading the article—now deleted from the Test Wiki and available here—was the boldness of the claims coupled with unclear sourcing. Although WBG is fluent in Bengali (and familiar with this case), I am confident that around 100% of the usual Signpost readers and a majority of all readers are illiterate in the language (and totally ignorant of these events). That language barrier makes it difficult to verify the claims made in the article (I am also illiterate in Bengali); thus, the sourcing that is provided, but which is not in English, is difficult to check. That makes fact-checking a problem.
For example, some PDF links are provided in the article, but the documents are largely in Bengali (and machine translations of Bengali are incomprehensible), so they are frankly almost useless for those of us who do not understand the language. Consequently, for someone in my position (as a reader and editor), the author's claims cannot be verified with any confidence and so must be taken at face value. Add to this the fact that these events are not being reported in English-language sources—The Signpost seems to be first here if published—and the language barrier for verification becomes intractible.
Separately, there is also the fact that those PDFs contain sensitive personal information about a living person (namely the editor's phone number and personal email from 2015–17), which is why we have policies against using primary sources in such situations. (Those policies seem to extend to The Signpost as well, at least theoretically, so that further complicates the situation.) Unfortunately, I doubt there is a better source for this information, so we are stuck with either publicizing primary sources which contain emails and phone numbers or not sourcing those claims. Those claims are at the crux of this scandal, however, so simply removing them undermines the whole piece.
Given these circumstances, I am not sure how to proceed. The best suggestion I have is that WBG translate the relevant excerpts into English and quote them in the article, and to link to where they are finding their information. For example, which mailing list? What is the link for the email in the mailing list archive? Where did Commons locally override the mandatory paid editing disclosure stated in the Terms of Use? Once that is all provided, the translations can be used for verification. For the claims that are totally unverifiable, they can either be removed on those grounds or understood to be the opinions of the author (perhaps with a disclaimer at the top stating as much).
Ultimately, despite the news being fresher now than it will be in late November, it may be worthwhile to consider postponing this piece until next issue. That will give more time for developing this, too. I still support inclusion, even in this issue (which I think is achievable), and I frankly think scandals like this are worth the investigative journalism (and that The Signpost can benefit from that), but I am concerned about both the language barrier for verification and the sensitivity of the information in some of the sourcing. Regardless, if this piece is not published this issue, then frankly WBG should not wait until next issue; at that point, it may be better to publish the piece on Wikinews, where Wikipedia's policies and guidelines—including about living persons—do not apply. Then, The Signpost can prominently link to it in the next issue. Regardless of what is decided, I intend to help along the way.
With all that said, what do you think, Chris Troutman and anyone else reading this? So long as translated English excerpts and additional sourcing are added to the piece, will the report be acceptable for publication despite these other concerns? As for fact-checking, that will likely require either relying on WBG's translations or involving another bn-4+ editor. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment. If WBG can clean that up, including prefacing his comments as either opinion or conclusion based upon primary sources, I'd be ok with it. I'd prefer to see input from an independent editor fluent in Bengali to help sort this out for us. While I think The Signpost can do some good for the community by bringing to light apparent wrongdoing, I don't want us to spread distortions and accusations without merit. A tighter, better-written, better-referenced piece would make more sense. I would also prefer to wait until next month if those changes cannot be completed in time. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, if any of the following recently active bn-4+ editors are willing to help out, either simply with verification or also with editing and translating, it is appreciated: Nafsadh, Intellectualyo, Che12Guevara, Chandan Guha, and Ra1han. Basically, check this out and this discussion for some further context. Especially if you are familiar with the Hasive case (a former admin at the Bengali Wikipedia who has recently been banned for undisclosed paid editing funded by the Bangladeshi government), but even if not, please consider helping out with preparing the piece for publication in The Signpost, which will be within two days (28 October).
Apologies for the unsolicited pings, but this is the price and purpose of self-categorizing one's place in Babel. If you aren't interested or don't have the time, feel free to either say so or simply ignore this message. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Exactly how can I help you Nøkkenbuer? Che (Talkin' Bout A Revolution) 05:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Specifically, if you are willing, please read this and check the links to see if they verify and support the claims being made, specifically the source content in Bengali, such as the emails. Moreover, if you want to contribute more substantively to it, you can translate excerpts that you think are relevant and insert them as quotes to enrich the piece, which can help those of us who are illiterate in Bengali to independently verify the claims. The reason why I am asking you (and the others I pinged), Che, is because you claim to be competent in both English and Bengali, and you have been active recently, so you are available and do not suffer from the language barrier I have for verifying the most important claims.
This is all much like how one goes about verifying and editing content and sourcing (and adding quotes) in the mainspace, only different because The Signpost is an internal publication by and for Wikipedians that does not require the same sourcing and tone that is used in encyclopedic articles. So, while mainspace editing experience is translatable to here, content from The Signpost is not informative for learning how to edit the mainspace. If you are not interested, that's fine. This is just a request and Wikipedia is a volunteer service. Regardless, thanks for your consideration. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 06:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, inability to read Bengali sources is obviously going to affect a reader and I guess the above-pinged contributors (@Titodutta::-)) can verify the content.This is the age-old problem of using regional-language sources over wiki-articles; a topic that can be quite well-covered at a Signpost issue.
If you had clicked on the pdf-links, you would have seen that they were the same' ones as provided by Aftabazzuman in the en.wiki thread and corresponded with the ones in the email and in the linked bn.wiki discussion.You don't need to understand Bengali, URLs can be easily detected and their addresses tallied.
You sed The best suggestion I have is that WBG translate the relevant excerpts into English and quote them in the article.It's precisely what I did, throughout! Faithful translation noting the arguments of the debate, summarising it and generating a translation.I did not indulge in any original research and took extra care, as to not mention any allegation, that can't be sourced (which was fairly absent).
The sole editorializing has been executed in the last two sections and the tone is clear enough, ain't it?!
Those two links had been the entire evidence, which plotted his downfall and I will invoke WP:CRYBLP. I doubt that for an editor who has readily accepted that those documents do mention him (and also explicitly mentions his real life identity and links to social-media-profiles over his meta-user-page), there is not any scope of outing.He has self-outed himself, from a time much earlier and under no compulsion.
As to What is the link for the email in the mailing list archive, why don't you Ctrl + F send a mail which contains a hyperlink and see what is quite evident? I note that the link has been provided at the very first line, wherein the allegations have been introduced.Anybody, slightly proficient in internet-stuff and mailinglists can figure out that it is Wikimedia BD mailing list, esp. by the start of the title.
Not sure, how you missed that:-)
That, Commons has overridden TOU (which any community can do) is no new fact but probably can be to those not spending time, in the backcorners (for a good:-)).See Commons:Paid contribution disclosure policy.
And, Wikinews has been a joke, (the last time I checked), something which should have been long shut off.
Slap Citation-needed tags on whatever bothers you and I will ammend accordingly.This do need some additional citations and a copy-edit and probable trimming along with mandatory stylistic changes.∯WBGconverse 20:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I hope you understand that this is not a trust issue, WBG; I trust you to faithfully document and interpret these events, not least because of your extensive record of work on Wikipedia. If I considered you to be incompetent for the task, your mere stated familiarity with the case would not have been enough for me to solicit you. Verification is nonetheless being requested and is still important to do simply as part of editing, though. Even you, the Winged Blades of Godric, can accidentally err when handling complicated matters like this. Additional input increases confidence in the published work being error-free and decreases the chance of any errors making it past drafting.
Frankly, I do not personally care about the BLP concerns because I do not consider them serious. The phone number is probably old and can easily be changed, the email is easy to guess based on the publicized usernames and email that the user provided on their own user page, this information is published in public government records, and it is not like the user has attempted to keep their identity a secret. I do not personally object to their inclusion, which is why I already support inclusion of your piece.
Nonetheless, I mention them because I am attempting to anticipate the greater contingencies and considerations involved. For example:
  • How will readers respond? What if some of them cry BLP, especially those who might have ulterior motives for doing so or are the ones who usually do? I don't want you getting hate mail for "outing" a "respected and maligned admin" with "a long record of service", to quote the hypothetic harasser who might email you or plague your user talk page.
  • Moreover, how might the Foundation respond to having The Signpost publish original investigative reporting on the undisclosed government-funded paid editing of a living person who is a former Wikimedia chapter board member, de facto Foundation representative, and currently active Wikimedian? That is going beyond just criticizing the Foundation or reporting on drama details among certain editors; that is actual journalism. As far as I am aware, a piece like this has never been published by The Signpost—which is still a part of Wikipedia and can, in principle, be sanctioned for violating its policies and guidelines.
  • If this blows up, how might external media respond to it? This issue is already likely to attract some attention simply due to this being the "official" internal magazine for the English Wikipedia community and consequently the "official" response about the Strickland biography fiasco. If this gets bungled, or you receive backlash for this piece, are you prepared to see your username in an article by The Washington Post?
That is why it is important to get right, at least for me. Part of that involves explicitly evaluating whether there are BLP concerns, even if I personally consider them undue in context. And yes, I missed the mailing list link. Sorry about that. What I mean by translating is providing some translated inline quotes or blockquotes of relevant text, such as from official decisions at the Bengali Wikipedia or in the emails. These quotes are important not just to enrich the text, but also to assist readers in verifying what occurred, given how many of them probably see Bengali script as very pretty squiggles.
I understand that the PDF links are the same, but getting a user banned at AN/I, even one of such stature, is different in terms of its potential ramifications than the publication of an in-depth investigative piece about that user's editorial malpractice. Even AN/I bans of notable users can get press attention; publicizing that with an internal publication that is then mass-messaged to thousands of Wikipedians makes it all the more likely. Part of why I know the machine translations are incomprehensible garbage, by the way, is because I put some of the text from the PDFs through Google Translate. The result was functionally gibberish.
Regarding original research, I think that this piece can safely be considered as such or at least close to it (it is an original analysis and synthesis of primary sources, some of which probably would not pass mainspace reliability), but that is okay. The policies against original research apply to the mainspace and I doubt they are applicable outside it except when some other policy is also being violated, like BLP. Anyway, it seems that some original research, analysis, and synthesis is very much allowed in The Signpost because original reporting is what journalism is mainly about. Sure, since it is still within Wikipedia's scope, there are restrictions that one might not have at Wikinews or elsewhere, but The Signpost definitely seems like the place to go to find examples of content policies and guidelines being skirted.
The Commons disclosure policy may be old news, but it is still a controversial claim that can be challenged, so it needs sourcing. Also, please consider the fact that newbies read The Signpost (many welcome templates mention and link to the magazine) and even experienced editors may not be familiar with some of these events, especially non-en.Wiki ones. For example, I created this account in early 2015 and have never been significantly active on Commons except to participate in the POTY. It is entirely reasonable to assume that an editor like me is totally unfamiliar with Commons policy, especially details of Commons policy which override the Terms of Use. Given these realities, assuming ignorance from the reader may be best practice.
Yes, Wikinews is one of the last remaining ancient wonders of the Wikimedian world, given how long it has survived on life support despite being so dead. Nonetheless, it provides greater latitude for original reporting than anywhere else in Wikimedia and a publication there can easily be used as an excuse to shoehorn the reporting into the next issue. The point of such a suggestion is to ensure the story gets out and your contributions get the publication they deserve. That is why I want to include it in this issue. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC); slightly edited at 22:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather not run this under my name as editor. We still have an outstanding question of community buy-in on reporting on issues concerning individual editors; and this one, as pointed out, is particularly sticky with extremely serious allegations of wrongdoing and an individually named real-world person. This is one of the reasons I started off the month asking what we should consider our policy on reporting on individual Wikipedians. Until the answer to that is known and has rock-solid consensus, this would be a mistake. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, officially, there is no chief editor (like "From the editors" states) and it will be bylined to WBG if included, so unless you want to take responsibility for the publication, this issue is the "collective" responsibility of its contributors—a collective whose decisions were against your own in this area. I am not saying that should occur, Bri, and the importance of your perspective to me should be obvious by now; I also understand why you would be hesitant to be associated with such reporting, even for sheer precautionary reasons. In some ways, so am I. My point is that many decisions in this issue have thus far been made in more of a consensus-based way; so if there is consensus for publishing this piece even if you you oppose doing so, and you do not assert some authority in overruling that consensus, then its potential publication was not decided by you. Thus, if worst comes to pass, blaming you for not violating project-wide policy—and for abiding by consensus—is silly and can be dismissed as such. That is one benefit for dissenters in consensus: their dissent absolves them of culpability for the consensus. Of course, all this is contingent on there actually being consensus, which I do not think is the case yet.
As for the Wikipedian-specific focus, I think it is a far different situation from before. Whereas the prior concerns were about editors in good standing involved in an internal dispute that had good faith all around, this particular editor has been engaging in egregiously bad-faith and long-term undisclosed paid editing (which is in contravention of the Terms of Use) as part of government-funded propaganda efforts—that is, unless this is all fake news of the bigliest kind and all the editors involved along the way have been either hoodwinkers or -winked. Kudpung was just recently resysopped; Hasive has been desysopped and indefinitely banned on multiple projects, including here, and expelled as a board member for Wikimedia Bangladesh. As I implied above, this is not something that can be dismissed and derided as drama mongering or gossip reporting; this is actual journalism. Do these differences make a distinction? And if so, does that distinction justify a different response?
Yes, they are allegations insofar as the rationales for blocking and banning any user are allegations, at least some of which have almost certainly been false or unjust if only by accident. These allegations are unlikely to ever be legally actioned, so there will be no solace from the infallibility of the judiciary. The closest Wikimedia analogs have taken definitive action, however, which is why there is a report. The only stop left here is a global ban by the Foundation and, if these already-accepted-enough-to-be-actioned allegations are true, then that very well may already be in the process of occurring (but, you know, it's the Foundation). Likely when that occurs, will it better for The Signpost to have not reported at all? What if this report is what places enough pressure for the Foundation to act?
I understand how controversial, risky, and bold publishing this report may be, especially given the circumstances and its potentially last-day inclusion. It is why I have suggested alternatives to consider, despite my support for publication, whether this issue or next; it is also why I have pinged multiple Bengali-literate active editors to assist with verification. If you still do not want to be associated with this piece, even after considering all the above, then okay. I respect that and thank you for the consideration, anyway. But if so, then do you have any alternatives to suggest? Wikinews is a haunted house, The Signpost's team seems reluctant to publish, and I doubt any external media will be inclined to publish even a prewritten piece. Where to go from here? If The Signpost won't report on this, a significant Wikimedia scandal, then who will? —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC); slightly edited at 04:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I've been pinged here, I 'm not sure in what context - my resysopping is not for tittle-tattle in The Signpost, or anywhere else in that matter (grave dancers have an annoying predilection for not reviewing the entire facts; and that may be one of the reasons why there may be some resistance to publishing this piece). The draft is highly accusatory and IMO as a former professional journalist, it smacks more of red-top scandal than serious reporting in the established press and highly regarded news media such as The Atlantic and Der Spiegel - at least what we are used to in the Western world - and I am very well aware of the cultural dichotomies between Asia and Western cultures. Add to that, The Signpost is strictly the organ for the English Wikipedia and events that directly concern it (such as for example our participation in gobal events such as Wikimania, or the massive cleanup our editors had to make after the WMF's ill fated WP:IEP of which a sour taste still lingers six years later. At least the issue of the IEP was an English language one and did not concern a different Wikimedia language project. I have no say anymore in what is published in The Signpost so these are just my 2 cents, so please no one be offended at my opinion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for the input, Kudpung. The ping was in the context of explaining how Wikipedian-specific content in the prior issue is qualitatively and quantitatively different from this matter. The community response to that prior content seems to be the most salient source of Bri's reluctance, since I think it is clear that Bri took that response very seriously and wants to ensure The Signpost avoids repeating the mistake of reporting about individual Wikipedians in a way that can be taken as unfair or otherwise inappropriate. That is admirable and part of why Bri is so respected.
    Specifically, I was contrasting how your recent resysopping shows a different status and trajectory than this case. You would not have been resysopped without an RfA unless it was determined that your desysopping was not "under a cloud"; this is starkly different from the prompt and near-unanimous desysopping, board expulsion, and community ban of Hasive. This was toward the point of suggesting that these differences are grounds for a distinction in how we handle these matters: internal controversies that ended with all editors intact and no upheld sanctions may not necessarily be due mention, but long-term cross-Wiki misconduct from a major player in the Wikimedian community involving UPE subsidized by a national government and resulting in their expulsion from most of the movement probably is.
    By "actual journalism", I mean that it is original reporting that seeks to investigate misconduct, compile evidence of it, and shine a light on it by publicizing the results. It is not mere news, nor mere opinion, nor mere syndication (though they are all important parts); it is serving the community as a watchdog that exposes problems that were not meant to be exposed. It may not be like the work of professional journalists at well-staffed and -resourced news organizations, but The Signpost is not the latter and its contributors are generally not the former, the prominent exception I know being you. Yes, it is accusatory, but it is unclear to me whether there is a preferable alternative tone which is not incongruent with the accusations. Given these accusations have been accepted as true by the English Wikipedia's administration, at least enough for the user to be indefinitely banned here as well by the admins who evaluated it (the misconduct in this project didn't help their case), I think this case is also relevant to the English Wikipedia.
    Regardless, I have made my case more than enough and, if only due to the length both in time and bytes I have regrettably caused, I do not want to be taken as disruptive. So, I will now get back to copy-editing and leave this in the hands of the team. Whatever the decision, I will continue to help however best I can. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Nøkkenbuer, I totally respect your opions, as you know, but this does not prevent you and me from having different ones. However, I cannot exercise any authority over what gets published and what doesn't, I can only opine. I've been doing a lot of CE and proof reading this morning but please do go ahead and check again - my eyes are not so good these day. Even with my glasses, they need surgery.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Nøkkenbuer I read User:Winged Blades of Godric/The rise and fall of a Wikimedian--Paid editing and Governments but I don't see what need is there of me. I personally feel that User:Winged Blades of Godric is capable of handling the subject on his own and there is no need of me. However, if you feel the need for something specific from me, please let me know and I shall try my best. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Personally I'd rather see this posted as a fact based report in News and notes: from our content guidance, "The "News and notes" section (shorthand N&N or NAN) focuses on news from the English Wikipedia, the activities of Foundation itself and its chapters, and more broadly the Wikimedia movement at large." WBG could comment there with a link to his essay if he chooses. My comment about appearing as responsible for the decision to publish it as investigatory journalism regarding one Wikipedian stands; if the consensus in the newsroom is to do so despite my reservations, I'd take my name off acting E-in-C and the "from the editors" byline. It's still my position that change the nature of the publication in this way requires more than local consensus and should be preceded by a well-announced, well-attended community discussion. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm proposing User:Bri/Wikimedia Bangladesh board member removed as a starting point for a News and notes item. If there is a second, please cut/paste it into Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems that WBG already anticipates that the piece will not be published this issue due to the deadline, Bri. So long as WBG is fine with postponing this and working on it for perhaps next issue or something of the sort, then I fully intend to assist with that work. Were it not for how salient this scandal is, and how stale it might be come late November, I would have not been so motivated to get it in this issue. That seems like it won't be occurring, though, except perhaps as a brief note.
Regarding your proposal, it seems to leave out much context (and favorable details of the user's deeds), while including the documents from which those apparent BLP concerns derived. If your concern is the tone of the original piece, that can be worked out without much difficulty. Nonetheless, it is better than including nothing—but is it better than waiting until a fuller piece can be published?
On the matter of consensus, I only suggested that as a way to provide you with a basis for washing your hands of this particular piece while also having it published and you still being part of the issue, if you wanted to dissociate from it, so you would not feel responsible for it and could justify why you are not. It was not an attempt at minimizing your input, whose impression I might have unintentionally given with how I framed it; it was an attempt at, frankly, giving you an out from the pressure of being placed in a potentially determinative role in blocking the piece's publication. Regardless, I do not think there is consensus here, at least not clear consensus of any sort. I seem to be the only one pushing for inclusion, after all.
Like I suggested above in "Controversies involving Wikipedians", this issue can include a feature that presents this Wikipedian-specific content issue to the community for broader input. It be something short that poses the question to the readers for them to discuss in the comments. No specifics need to be said, with "the reader response to last issue" being the extent of the detail. If what you want is broader consensus beyond the newsroom, using The Signpost itself to solicit reader input is one effectie way of seeking it. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I like the suggestion of asking for reader input. Do you have time to draft some text for this, for feedback? Possibly today since we are so near our publication deadline. Also, please feel free to adopt and expand my text for the News and notes piece. I didn't intend for it to be a full stop but a starting point, if you think context is lacking, for example. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I am reluctant to submit anything because I know it basically means I will probably be bylined (no ghostwriting allowed, I suspect) and the use of "we" in the piece means I should probably be added to the editorial board despite my wishes, if only for the sake of the readers. (And I can't go with "they" because why would a guest writer be speaking for the team?) There is also the fact that I am delirious from sleep-deprived overwork to prepare the publication, so this is far from me at my best. Nonetheless, it was my idea and I want to facilitate the community engagement, so I guess this is the cost of participation. You can see the draft here, Bri. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
What you wrote, Nøkkenbuer, looks really good and I'd like to run it as the content of 'From the editors'. I also took the liberty of adding you to the editorial team (i.e. you and me) for indirect reference in the byline. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope it results in some productive discussion. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I recommend what I suggested above, which is basically just ensuring there are no issues. I trust WBG is capable, too, as I stated earlier; but part of editing is verification and checking for errors, which do occasionally occur (some were edited out just earlier today in a different piece) and simply as an accident. Since I am illiterate in Bengali and it seems WBG was was the only one who wasn't, I am unable to perform that necessary part of editing. I can edit the text itself, sure, but I have to do so on sheer faith that the interpretation, analysis, and even correct linking of the sources are all error free. Something as simply as mixing up the links when sourcing claims can be very confusing for readers and needs to be addressed prior to publication, but I cannot do that because I do not understand the sources. In that sense, this is not about WBG's capabilities; this is about mine. That is why I asked for assistance with addressing those editorial gaps caused by the language barrier. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Returning

Great to hear! Welcome back. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ready for publication - well almost

I've just spent 12 hours on CE and finishing some stuff that wasn't finished. Like it or lump it - I'm not in charge but someone has to do the grunt work. Could Chris troutman please stand by? Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It was my understanding that publication deadline isn't until 23:59 on 28 October 2018 (UTC). Right now, I am working through the op-ed and the reason why I have not published anything in many hours is because I came across a major mixup in the data for the first part that needs untangling. Basically, due to a couple misplaced data points, the entire data set is incorrect. I have been verifying and resummarizing the timeline as a result by checking the exact timestamps of every single language edition of the Strickland article.
Due to this, I strongly recommend waiting until at least that is published, though I will continue to comb through the issue the more time I'm given (I haven't gone through every part of it yet and haven't touched a few). I support delaying publication until the end 29 October as well, but I'm a perfectionist, so of course I will be inclined to have the time to read and verify every single detail. Whatever the case, I will continue working until publication. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 10:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC); edited to add missing "28" at 05:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Publishing: 28 October 23:59 UTC . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm ready; waiting on Bri for the go-ahead. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Apologies again for my absence... I'll do my best to get the traffic report done next issue like I said I would start to do... It feels like my time is becoming more and more constrained and this is the first time in a while I've had more than five minutes to log in. I'm looking into other opportunities for employment that won't have me away from home 11 hours a day with no Wikipedia. I miss you guys so much! ♥Acorimori♦ 19:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

That's really nice but remember, real life is always more important. :) — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 01:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
It's entirely understandable why you are not available, Acorri. Even if it wasn't, so what, Wikipedia is a volunteer service and you have no obligations here. Good luck with the job search, though these days just having a job is the luck. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Featured content: Apparently there is a script at GitHub that takes care of this. I have no idea how it works or how long it takes to import the data, compile, format, and CE the page. If it's a simple process, it might just be possible to squeeze it before publication deadline. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    Likewise with this blog post, though given the saturation of Strickland content (and this being linked in the op-ed), it's not bringing anything new. Importing that blog post will basically just be filler to provide more content for the issue. If I knew how to do this myself, I would, but the scripts do not even seem to come with installation instructions. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I will check in on Sunday morning (West Coast) and see what I can do to help wrap this up. Everyone's input has been incredible this issue! ☆ Bri (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I moved things around so there is a 'Special report' and 'Special report 2'; the previous Essay is now an Opinion. And merged Nøkkenbuer's question for the readers to 'From the editors'. I'd say we are ready to publish now ... any last calls for changes? I'll wait an hour or so then ping the publication manager. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    Although it would be the Wikidata community and not the Wikipedia one, you can rename the second special report to a "Community view", if you want to avoid two special reports, Bri. Alternatively, Bradv's essay can be its own one-off feature, a "Bonus" one. Otherwise, two special reports is fine; the fact that there are two might even reflect positively on The Signpost, since it now has multiple reports being published—well, this month at least.
    On publishing, anytime is okay. More time means more opportunity for me to continue editing; I haven't really touched "Recent research" this issue, for example. Otherwise, I can just finish up my copy-editing of the traffic report (that is probably minutes away) and publication can begin. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
'From the editors'

I don't like it. A call for customer feedback IMO is unnecessary. Many Wikipedians are mean spirited and absolutely revel in muck racking and opportunities to attack each other either directly or through back-stabbing elsewhere. This kind of appeal will just put beans up their noses and I would regret ever having had anything thing to with the magazine. I think there should be a firm editorial stance and policy to refrain from The Signpost becoming a gutter press. I can almost predict swho the reader comments will come from. Again, I realise that I have absolutely no say in what gets published. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry to learn this. I anticipate that those who want to malign and troll the magazine will do so regardless of whether reader's comments are invited on a matter like this, though. Many Wikipedians may be that way, but allowing them to effectively control the discourse merely by threat of presence, such that attempts at community engagement are forsaken to avoid controversy, seems to be a greater threat to The Signpost than some attention-grabbing drama. The latter may bring with it some incivility, but the former is basically an admission that it's too savage beyond the walls of the newsroom for safe venture. If so, then it is unclear why anyone ought to write for such a community.
Regardless, it was just a suggestion, given Bri seemed concerned about local consensus developing in the newsroom that may be at odds with the interests of the readership. The piece only took an hour or so to write; I have no personal attachment to it nor will I object to reverting back to the prior "From the editors" piece and scrapping the whole idea. I leave that decision up to the team and will support whatever is chosen. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Nøkkenbuer and Bri:, during my tenure as (acting) E-in-C,I obtained authorisation from the WMF to use their Qualtrics account to do a professional, anonymised survey of The Signpost regular (and not so regular) users. I am well acquainted with the psychology of questionaire design and the use of survey software and conditional fields, but like many things, my participation on The Signpost was soured, and for personal reasons concomittant with my Urlaub from adminship I never actually got round to it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Archive_2&oldid=1237239064"